
Hass 



Copyright N° \ < \')A 

Co p y 7~s 

COWHIGHT DEPOStr. ' 




























* 













































. 




















K a' 











- 




.. 























































V 


■ 






, 

■ 


















I 

REPORTS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY 

OF THE 

GENERAL CONFERENCE 

OF THE 

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

WITH RULINGS BY THE 
BOARD OF BISHOPS 

Compiled Under the Authority of the General Conference 


ARTHUR BENTON SANFORD / 

J 

Introduction by 

HENRY WADE ROGERS 

ADVISORY EDITOR 
AND 

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY IN 1908, 1912, 1916, AND 1920 



THE METHODIST BOOK CONCERN 


NEW YORK 


CINCINNATI 



.A35 

\qz4 


Copyright, 1924, by 

THE METHODIST BOOK CONCERN 




All rights reserved, including that of translation Into 
foreign languages, including the Scandinavian 


4 


«*. 




Printed In the United States of 

APR 25 ’24 J 

©ClA702144d^ 


America 


'W<0 


CONTENTS 


PART I 

PAGE 

Introduction . v 

I. Early Judicial Procedure: 1792-1832. 1 

II. Early Judicial Procedure: 1836. 5 

III. Early Judicial Procedure: 1840-1856. 12 

IV. Early Judicial Procedure: 1860-1872. 21 

V. Judiciary Committee: Decisions of 1876. 29 

VI. Committee on Judiciary : Decisions of 1880 .. 32 

VII. Decisions of 1884. 39 

VIII. Decisions of 1888. 54 

IX. Decisions of 1892. 61 

X. Decisions of 1896. 71 

XI. Decisions of 1900. 84 

XII. Decisions of 1904. 92 

XIII. Decisions of 1908. 112 

XIV. Decisions of 1912. 140 

XV. Decisions of 1916. 183 

XVI. Decisions of 1920. 220 

PART II 

XVII. Reports Not Acted Upon or Not Adopted. .. 255 

PART III 

XVIII. Rulings of the Board of Bishops. 287 






























INTRODUCTION 


The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church at its last session directed the publication of this book 
by the adoption of a resolution which directed the Book Com¬ 
mittee “to print in one volume all the reports which have been 
submitted by the Committee on Judiciary from the begin¬ 
ning” (Gen. Conf. Journal, 1920, p. 413). 

The Committee on Judiciary has heretofore been seriously 
embarrassed in the discharge of its duties by not having 
ready access to the reports of the action of the Judiciary Com¬ 
mittees of former years and of the action of the General 
Conference relating thereto. The work of this Committee 
will be greatly aided by the publication of this volume, and 
by the additions which it is expected will be made to it quad¬ 
rennially by including therein the reports of that Committee 
and of the action of the General Conference concerning the 
same. 

The publication has involved a very considerable labor by 
the compiler, who has done his work most faithfully. He 
was well fitted to undertake it, having been an able, accept¬ 
able, and painstaking Secretary of the New York East Con¬ 
ference for more than a quarter of a century. 

The volume which he has produced will prove of greatest 
value to the General Conferences and the Committees on 
Judiciary of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and it will be 
not without interest to the ministry and laity of the Church 
who desire to be intelligently informed on the judicial action 
of the highest court in the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

The members of the Committee on Judiciary and the Com¬ 
mittee on Revision are chosen in a manner different from that 
which governs the membership of the other Standing Commit¬ 
tees of the General Conference. There are fifteen General 
Conference Districts, and all the delegates from the several 
Conferences which are included in a particular General Con¬ 
ference District are publicly notified, by the Bishop presid¬ 
ing, to meet at a designated time and place and select its 
representation on the Committee and report the selection to 
the Secretary of the General Conference. After these selec- 

v 


VI 


INTRODUCTION 


tions have been made the Bishops nominate four additional 
members at large and these are confirmed by a vote of the 
General Conference. Then the Committee meets and selects 
its Chairman and Secretary. Thereupon the Committee be¬ 
comes ready for the consideration of such business as comes 
before it. 1 

All appeals coming to the General Conference under the 
provisions of the Discipline and the rulings of the Bishops go 
automatically to the Committee on Judiciary, together with 
such other questions as the General Conference may refer to it. 

The reports of the Committee on Judiciary have always 
been privileged, which means that they have precedence over 
the other business of the General Conference. 

Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts 

In Anglo-Saxon times there seems to have been no distinc¬ 
tion between lay and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in England. 
The county court in that country in those times seems to have 
been as much a spiritual as a temporal tribunal. The rights 
of the Church were ascertained and asserted at the same time 
and by the same judges as the rights of the laity. It was not 
until after the Norman Conquest that the common law courts 
and the ecclesiastical courts were separated and the latter came 
to be invested with the sole jurisdiction over ecclesiastical 
cases. (See 3 Chitty’s Blackstone Com. 61, 63. Short v. 
Stotts 50 Ind. 29, 35.) 

In this country we have no such thing as an ecclesiastical 
court in the sense in which that term is used in England. In 
that country the term is employed to designate a court admin¬ 
istering the canon law. There is a national canon law in Eng¬ 
land which came into existence there prior to the Reformation, 
and which is adapted to the exigencies of the English Church 
and Kingdom. But that system never became a part of Amer¬ 
ican law. In England its authority depends on 25 Henry 
VIII, c. 19, revised and confirmed by 1 Eliz. c. 1. 

The ecclesiastical courts of England administered the eccle- 

1 The Second General Conference District is typical of the fifteen Gen¬ 
eral Conference Districts into which the whole Church is divided. The 
Second District at the last General Conference consisted of 62 delegates 
representing Denmark, Finland, Italy, New Jersey, New York, New York 
East, Newark, Norway and Sweden. 



INTRODUCTION 


vii 

siastical law. Their jurisdiction extended to matters con¬ 
cerning the order of the clergy and their discipline, and to 
such affairs of the laity a as concern the health of the soul.” 
It included also such subjects as marriage and divorce, and 
testamentary causes. At the present time the jurisdiction of 
those courts has been much restricted and is now practically 
confined to the administration of the judicial authority and 
discipline incident to a national ecclesiastical establishment. 

In the United States we have nothing which answers to 
the ecclesiastical law of England. But we have a body of law 
which the civil courts administer and which applies to Re¬ 
ligious Societies. In addition we have ecclesiastical tribunals 
created by the churches which exercise a certain jurisdiction, 
as we shall now briefly point out. 

In the United States all questions relating to faith, prac¬ 
tice, discipline of the Church and of its members belong not. 
to the civil courts but to the ecclesiastical tribunals to which 
the members of the Church are subject, and the decisions of 
those tribunals are final. 

The civil courts do not have any jurisdiction except in 
cases in which temporal rights are involved, and they do not 
review the decisions of ecclesiastical tribunals in matters 
which are properly within the province of such tribunals. 
For example, the civil courts are without jurisdiction to re¬ 
view the action of competent church authority in the expul¬ 
sion of a member, or of a minister, or the decision of a Gen¬ 
eral Conference or General Assembly upon a proposed re¬ 
vision or amendment of the Constitution of the Church. 

The civil courts, in this country, act upon the theory that 
the ecclesiastical courts are the best judges of merely eccle¬ 
siastical questions and matters which relate to doctrine and 
discipline. Kims v. Robertson, 154 Ill. 394; East Norway 
Lake Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Halvorson, 
42 Minn. 503. And such courts will not review the proceed¬ 
ings of ecclesiastical tribunals in matters properly within 
their province under the laws and regulations of the Church. 
Carter v. Papinean, 222 Mass. 464; Travers v. Abbey, 104 
Tenn. 665. They will not review proceedings of church 
tribunals on questions involving church discipline. Pounder 
v. Ashe, 44 Nebr. 672. Neither do they review the acts of a 


viii 


INTRODUCTION 


religious organization with reference to its internal affairs 
for the purpose of ascertaining their regularity with the 
discipline and usages of the Church. Bonacum v. Harring¬ 
ton, 65 Nebr. 831. So they will not enjoin the proceedings 
of such tribunals where it is not alleged that property rights 
will be affected. Fussell v. Hail, 233 Ill. 73. 

The conduct of a trial before an ecclesiastical tribunal de¬ 
pends upon the rules of the ecclesiastical body or denomina¬ 
tion to which the person being tried belongs. Gibbs v. Gilead 
Ecclesiastical Society, 38 Conn. 153. If such ecclesiastical 
body or denomination has no rules, then the proceeding must 
be conducted in accordance with the rules of the common law, 
which require that notice must be given the member of the 
charges which are made against him, and an opportunity 
must be afforded him to answer the charges and make his de¬ 
fense. Canadian Religious Association v. Parmenter, 180 
Mass. 415; Jones v. State, 38 Nebr. 495. But at a church 
trial the tribunal before which it takes place need not conform 
to the strict rules governing the admissibility of testimony 
which govern the civil courts. Arthur v. Norfield Parish 
Congregational Church Society, 73 Conn. 718. Neither is 
one hearing a bar to a subsequent hearing upon the same 
charge. Arthur v. Northfield Parish Congregational Church, 
supra. 

And the action of a religious society in expelling a mem¬ 
ber after a proper hearing is final and will not he reviewed 
by a civil court on the ground that the evidence on which the 
expulsion was based was insufficient. Canadian Religious 
Association v. Parmenter, 180 Mass. 415. And see Barkley 
v. Hayes, 208 Fed. 319; Houston v. Howze, 162 Ala. 500; 
Missions v. Church, 157 Cal. 105; Ramsey v. Hicks, 174 
Ind. 428; Landrith v. Hudgins, 121 Tenn. 556; Baxter v. 
McDonnell, 155 N\ Y. 83; Mack v. Kime, 129 Ga. 1, 58; 
Livingston v. Trenton Trinity Church, 45 NT. J. L. 230; 
Jennings v. Scarborough, 56 N. J. L. 401; Crawford v. Nies, 
220 Mass. 61; Morris St. Baptist Church v. Dart, 67 S. C. 
338. 

In Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 the Supreme Court of 
the United States had before it a litigation growing out of 
differences which arose concerning a Presbyterian church in 


INTRODUCTION 


IX 


Louisville. In the course of its opinion the Court, through 
Mr. Justice Miller, said: 

In this country the full and free right to entertain any 
religious belief, to practice any religious principle, and to 
teach any religious doctrine which does not violate the laws 
of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal 
rights, is conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is 
committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of 
no sect. The right to organize voluntary religious associations 
to assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious 
doctrine, and to create tribunals for the decision of contro¬ 
verted questions of faith within the association, and for the 
ecclesiastical government of all the individual members, con¬ 
gregations, and officers within the general association, is un¬ 
questioned. All who unite themselves to such a body do so 
with an implied consent to this government, and are bound to 
submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and would lead 
to the total subversion of such religious bodies, if anyone 
aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to the secular 
courts and have them reversed. It is of the essence of these 
religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for 
the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those 
decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cog¬ 
nizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself 
provides for. 

Nor do we see that justice would be likely to be promoted 
by submitting those decisions to review in the ordinary ju¬ 
dicial tribunals. Each of these large and influential bodies (to 
mention no others, let references be had to the Protestant 
Episcopal, the Methodist Episcopal, and the Presbyterian 
Churches) has a body of constitutional and ecclesiastical law 
of its own, to be found in their written organic laws, their 
books of discipline, in their collections of precedents, in their 
usage and customs, which as to each constitute a system of 
ecclesiastical law and religious faith that tasks the ablest minds 
to become familiar with. It is not to be supposed that the 
judges of the civil courts can be as competent in the ecclesiasti¬ 
cal law and religious faith of all these bodies as the ablest men 
in each are in reference to their own. It would therefore be 
an appeal from the more learned tribunal in the law which 
should decide the case, to one which is less so. 

In 1853 the Supreme Court of the United States had be¬ 
fore it in Smith v. Swoymstedt, 16 Howard 288, the 
effect of the separation of the Methodist Church, South, 
from the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1844. The ques- 


X 


INTRODUCTION' 


tion involved related to the property rights of the Church 
South. Commissioners appointed by the Church South sued 
the agents of The Book Concern for the share of the property 
held by The Book Concern which they claimed they were 
entitled to receive. The defendants, representing the Meth¬ 
odist Episcopal Church, denied that the Church as it existed 
in 1844 had been divided into two separate ecclesiastical or¬ 
ganizations, and they submitted that the bishops, ministers, 
and members who withdrew and organized the Church South 
constituted an unauthorized separation, and that they had 
renounced and forfeited all claim to any portion of the prop¬ 
erty. The proofs in the case consisted chiefly of the proceed¬ 
ings of the General Conference of 1844 and of the proceed¬ 
ings of the Southern Conferences in pursuance of which the 
organization of the Church South was made. The court 
held that the Methodist Episcopal Church was divided and 
said: 

But we do not agree that this division was made without the 
proper authority. On the contrary, we entertain no doubt but 
that the General Conference of 1844 was competent to make 
it; and that each division of the Church, under the separate 
organization, is just as legitimate, and can claim as high a 
sanction, ecclesiastical and temporal, as the Methodist Episco¬ 
pal Church first founded in the United States. The same 
authority which founded that Church in 1784 has divided it, 
and established two separate and independent organizations 
occupying the place of the old one. 

And in referring to the Six Bestrictive Buies embodied 
in the Constitution of the Church in 1808 the Court said: 

And it will be seen that these relate only to the doctrine 
of the Church, its representation in the General Conference, 
the Episcopacy, discipline of its preachers, and members, The 
Book Concern and charter fund. In all other respects, and in 
everything else that concerns the welfare of the Church, the 
General Conference represents the sovereign power the same as 
before. 

The Court added: 

The division of the Methodist Episcopal Church having thus 
taken place, in pursuance of the proper authority, it carried 
with it, as matter of law, a division of the common property 
belonging to the ecclesiastical organization, and especially of 


INTRODUCTION 


xi 


the property in this Book Concern, which belonged to the 
travelling preachers. 

It was held that the complainants, representing the Church 
South, were entitled to their share of the property of The 
Book Concern. And a decree was directed to be entered to 
carry the decision into effect. All the members of the Court 
concurred in the opinion, including Chief Justice Taney and 
Associate Justice John McLean—the latter of whom was a 
member of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

In 1900 the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut had 
before it the case, Trustees of Trinity Methodist Episcopal 
Church of Norwich v. Harris, 73 Conn. 216, in which it ap¬ 
peared that at the New England Southern Annual Confer¬ 
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1895, Bishop 
Walden, in making the appointments of preachers, assigned 
no preachers to three of the churches in Norwich, and instead 
appointed one preacher to “Trinity,” intending thereby to 
cause the three old societies to cease to exist and to unite the 
members of the three old societies with the name “Trinity 
Methodist Episcopal Church of Norwich.” This action he 
took under a power he assumed he possessed as Bishop 
under Sec. 3, par. 170 of the Discipline (ed. of 1892). 
After this action of the Bishop the larger part of 
the members of the three old societies acquiesced and 
proceeded as if their membership had been changed 
from the church to which they formerly belonged to the 
new church by the name of “Trinity.” Trustees of Trin¬ 
ity Church were regularly elected. The trustees of one of 
the old societies refused to transfer the title to the church 
property of the old society to the trustees of Trinity Church, 
but they permitted its use by the pastor and members of Trin¬ 
ity Church for religious purposes according to the Discipline 
of the Church. The deed to the property of the old society 
ran “to the trustees” of the old society “and their successors 
in office.” The question was, then, whether the trustees of 
Trinity could be regarded as the successors to the trustees of 
this old society which was the Central Methodist Church in 
Norwich. And the answer depended upon the right of Bishop 
Walden to do the thing which he undertook to do in consoli¬ 
dating the old societies into the new Church described as 


INTRODUCTION 


xii 

Trinity. It was argued that the book of Discipline gave the 
Bishop the power and authority, as the presiding Bishop of 
the Conference within the territorial limits of which the 
several churches involved were located, to do what he did. 
The Connecticut Court reversing the Court below sustained 
what the Bishop did, and held that the trustees of Central 
Church were bound to execute and deliver to the trustees of 
Trinity Church a quit claim deed to the property. See also 
Gaff v. Greer, 88 Ind. 122; Wheelock v. First Presbyterian 
Church, 119 Cal. 477, 482. 

The agreement of union between the Presbyterian Church 
in the United States and the Cumberland Presbyterian 
Church, entered into May 24, 1906, was held legal and valid 
in Duvall v. Synod of Kansas of the Presbyterian Church, 
222 Fed. 669, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court 
of the United States in 247 U. S. 1. 

In Irvine v. Elliott, 206 Pa. 152, the Supreme Court of 
Pennsylvania declared: “This court, as we have said time and 
again, is not a court of review of the proceedings of ecclesi¬ 
astical courts. As remarked in German Reformed Church v. 
Seibert, 3 Pa. 282, ‘Civil courts, if they would be so unwise 
as to attempt to supervise the judgment of church courts, on 
matters which come within their jurisdiction, would only in¬ 
volve themselves in a sea of uncertainty and doubt which do 
anything but improve either religion or good morals.’ ” 

Powers of General Conference 

The General Conference is the lawmaking body of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. The Annual Conferences do 
not possess the lawmaking power. They do, however, possess 
the right to vote upon Constitutional Amendments which have 
been recommended by a. General Conference by a two-thirds 
vote. And the Lay Electoral Conferences have a similar 
right. When a Constitutional Amendment has been proposed 
by the General Conference it becomes effective as soon as two 
thirds of all the members of the several Annual Conferences 
present and voting, and two thirds of all the members of 
the Lay Electoral Conferences present and voting shall have 
concurred therein (The Constitution, Article XI, Par. 47. 
Discipline of 1920, p. 45). An Amendment may originate 


INTRODUCTION 


xiii 

in the Annual Conferences as well as in the General Con¬ 
ference. If it does so originate and receives the concurrent 
recommendation of two thirds of all the members of the 
several Annual Conferences present and voting, and of two 
thirds of all the members of the Lay Electoral Conferences 
present and voting, then the next ensuing General Conference 
by a two-thirds vote has the power to alter or amend any pro¬ 
visions of the Constitution excepting Article X, Sec. 1 (The 
Constitution, Article XI, Par. 47, Supra). 

It thus appears that the Constitution contains a provision 
that cannot be amended. What that provision is will pres¬ 
ently appear. The Constitution of the United States con¬ 
tains in a somewhat similar way a provision that cannot be 
amended as other provisions may be. It is found in Article 
V, which declares “that no State, without its consent, shall 
be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” 

It must always be kept in mind that supreme as the Gen¬ 
eral Conference is in its lawmaking power it is not unlimited, 
the Constitution having imposed upon it certain limitations 
and restrictions which cannot be disregarded. Any law which 
it enacts in violation of these restrictions is void. These re¬ 
strictions are contained in Article X of the Constitution, 
which reads as follows: 

“The General Conference shall have full power to make 
rules and regulations for the Church under the following 
limitations and restrictions, namely: 

“Sec. 1. The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, 
nor change our Articles of Religion, nor establish any new 
standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing 
and established standards of doctrine. 

“Sec. 2. The General Conference shall not organize nor 
authorize the organization of an Annual Conference with 
less than twenty-five members. 

“Sec. 3. The General Conference shall not change nor 
alter any part or rule of our government so as to do away 
Episcopacy, nor destroy the plan of our itinerant General 
Superintendency; but may elect a Missionary Bishop or Su¬ 
perintendent for any of our foreign Missions, limiting his 
episcopal jurisdiction to the same respectively. 

“Sec. 4. The General Conference shall not deprive our 


XIV 


INTRODUCTION 


ministers of the right of trial by the Annual Conference, or 
by a select number thereof, nor of an appeal, nor shall it de¬ 
prive our members of the right of trial by a committee of 
members of our Church, nor of an appeal. 

“See. 6. The General Conference shall not appropriate 
the produce of The Book Concern, nor of the Chartered Fund, 
to any purpose other than for the benefit of the Traveling 
Supernumeraries, and Superannuated Preachers, their wives, 
widows, and children” (The Constitution, Article X, Par. 
46, Discipline , 1920, pp. 44 and 45). 

Judicial Power of General Conference 

The General Conference exercises both legislative and ju¬ 
dicial powers. For a body consisting of more than eight 
hundred members to exercise judicial powers, and with each 
delegate exercising the right to vote on any judicial question 
which is presented, is to perpetuate in the Church a procedure 
which has been abandoned by the States, a situation which 
nowhere now exists, so far as I am aware, in respect of ju¬ 
dicial questions which arise in any country. 

In this country, in the colonial period, the legislative as¬ 
semblies in some of the colonies exercised judicial as well as 
legislative functions. They sat as courts of review to grant 
new trials or to review judgments. But when Massachusetts 
framed its Constitution in 1780 it embodied in it the declara¬ 
tion that “in the government of this commonwealth, the leg¬ 
islative department shall never exercise the executive and 
judicial powers, or either of them; the executive shall never 
exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them; 
the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive 
powers, or either of them; to the end it may be a government 
of laws, and not of men.” In none of the States do the Leg¬ 
islatures now exercise judicial functions except in cases of 
impeachment. / 

In England the House of Lords still exercises judicial 
power, and any civil case may be taken to it from the Court 
of Appeal. It cannot review the verdict of a jury but it can 
pass upon errors of law which are alleged to have been com¬ 
mitted. But while theoretically every member of the House 
of Lords is as much entitled to share in the judicial as he is 


INTRODUCTION 


xv 


in the legislative work of that body, quite the contrary is 
the fact. No member of the House of Lords has for many 
years thought of voting upon cases which are brought before 
it on appeal, except the limited number of the Law Lords 
who are eminent lawyers and have had experience as judges. 

President Lowell in Government of England, vol. 2, p. 
465, says: 

The unwritten rule that only law lords shall sit when the 
House meets for judicial business is one of the conventions of 
the constitution that is most strictly observed, and if it were not 
rigidly followed, the position of the House as a court of law 
would be an absurdity. 

Proposals for Court of Appeals 

For nearly seventy-five years thoughtful leaders in the 
Church have been more or less dissatisfied with the exercise 
of judicial power by the General Conference. I have thought 
it helpful to the further consideration of the subject to call 
attention to the suggestions which have been made in the Gen¬ 
eral Conference upon this subject. 

On May 5 the Bishops presented to the General Confer¬ 
ence of 1848 the following communication: 

Pittsburgh, May 5th, 1848. 

To the General Conference of the M. E. Church: 

The Bishops recommend to the General Conference, that 
it take the proper steps toward the organization of a delegated 
Annual Conference, to consist of one delegate from each Annual 
Conference to receive and try appeals from the members of the 
Annual Conferences, and to review the acts of the General 
Conference, and suspend the operations of such of its enact¬ 
ments as are decided to be unconstitutional, until the next 
succeeding General Conference, or such other constitutional 
tribunal, with appellate jurisdiction, as they may judge proper. 

A motion was made to refer the recommendation to a se¬ 
lect committee. It was moved to amend and refer it to the 
Committee on Law Questions, and the motion as amended 
was adopted (General Conference Journal, vol. 3, p. 21). 
As there were twenty-three Annual Conferences existing at 
that time if this recommendation had been adopted the 
law body would have consisted of twenty-three members. 


xvi 


INTRODUCTION 


On May 16, 1848, there was introduced the further reso¬ 
lution which was also referred to the Committee on Law 
Questions: 

That the Committee on Law be instructed to inquire into 
the expediency of so altering the Discipline (two thirds of the 
General Conference, and three fourths of the members of the 
several Annual Conferences, present and voting, concurring), 
as to add the following to the section relating to the General 
Conference: "At every session of the General Conference a 
Committee, consisting of one member from each of the dele¬ 
gates composing that body, be chosen by the delegates respec¬ 
tively, in which one of the Bishops shall preside, shall be 
appointed, to be denominated, The Committee on Appeals. 
The said committee shall sit as a Court of Appeals during 
the regular sessions of the General Conference, from time to 
time, as necessity may require, and shall have full authority 
to hear, try, and finally adjudicate, all appeals from the de¬ 
cision of any Annual Conference, and which may be referred 
to them by the General Conference. 

The Committee on Law Questions did not report until the 
last day of the session, June 1, on the various resolutions 
submitted to them looking to the creation of a Court of Ap¬ 
peals or a Judiciary Conference empowered to deal with 
judicial questions. They reported that after bestowing upon 
the various proposals which had been presented "all the de¬ 
liberation so justly due to their intrinsic importance, no less 
than to the eminence of the sources whence they have respect¬ 
ively originated, your committee think that changes so vital 
should not be made at this juncture. Better that they should 
be subjects of consideration by the whole connexion for the 
next four years, and subjects of action, if need be, of the 
next session of this body” (General Conference Journal, 
1848, p. 128). 

In the General Conference of 1852, on May 7, the follow¬ 
ing resolution was introduced and adopted: 

Resolved, That the subject of providing for a constitutional 
test and council of appeal, submitted to the General Conference 
of 1848, and the report of the Committee on the same, as 
found on page 128 of the printed Journal, be called for and 
read. Also, that it be committed to a Select Committee of 
five, with instructions to report a bill in form (General Con¬ 
ference Journal, 1852, p. 28). 


INTRODUCTION 


XVII 


On May 14 one of the delegates presented a paper on the 
same subject which is not printed but was referred to the 
same Committee. 

On May 31, the day before the Conference adjourned, 
the report of the Committee on an Appeal Conference was 
taken up. A motion was thereupon made and carried “to 
lay the whole business on the table for the present” (General 
Conference Journal, 1852, p. 108). 

The report which the Committee submitted is of impor¬ 
tance and is found in the General Conference Journal, 1852, 
p. 195, and is as follows: 

The Committee, to whom was referred the communication 
of the Episcopacy, to the General Conference at Pittsburgh, in 
1848, on the subject of “Providing for a Constitutional Test 
and Conference of Appeals,” beg leave to report: 

That they have had the subject under consideration, and are 
fully of the opinion that provision should be made at this 
time for such department in the general administration of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. The necessity of some conserva¬ 
tive power to guard the constitutional acts of the General Con¬ 
ference, and preserve the limitations and restrictive rules by 
which it is to be governed, has been seen and felt by a large por¬ 
tion of the Church ever since the General Conference was 
made a representative body. 

There are but two organized departments now existing in 
our Church to which a suitable check can be referred, other 
than the General Conference itself; these are, first, the bishops 
collectively, as the joint superintendents, or to the several An¬ 
nual Conferences respectively. We could not consent to give 
the contemplated power to the Episcopacy, and thereby form 
a bench of Bishops, with supreme judicial power; nor can we 
believe that our Bishops would willingly have their already 
weighty responsibilities so increased. But we do believe, that, 
as the joint superintendents of the Church, they stand properly 
connected with, and in some way should be associated with this 
department of our ecclesiastical jurisprudence. The second is, 
to refer the right to the several Annual Conferences, to pro¬ 
nounce on the constitutionality of the acts and doings of the 
General Conference, which, in the opinion of your Committee, 
would produce confusion, and cause divisions and sectional dif¬ 
ferences; and which, instead of settling the difficulty and har¬ 
monizing the interests of the Church, would, in the final re¬ 
sult, dissolve its union. Bishop Asbury, in his posthumous 
address, which was read in the General Conference a few weeks 
after his death (1816), recommended a Committee of Safety, 
to guard the Restrictive Rules, which was construed by some 


INTRODUCTION 


xviii 

as forming an upper house, to which there were strong objec¬ 
tions, and the matter was dismissed, leaving the General Con¬ 
ference to judge of its own constitutional powers. The Com¬ 
mittee are of opinion that a constitutional test can only exist in 
coordinate branches of government, or by judicial proceedings, 
and therefore we would refer it to the Conference of Appeals 
on actions of complaint. 

The attention of your Committee was first called to provide. 
Who shall compose the Conference of Appeals? We are aware 
that different views are entertained on this subject. Some have 
thought that there should be one from each Annual Conference, 
and chosen in the same manner as the delegates to the General 
Conference. But against this there are weighty objections. 
First, the number would be too great for the convenient and 
patient investigation of judicial proceedings, and too expen¬ 
sive, both to themselves and to the Church. Second, it would 
in a great measure defeat the intended object of forming a 
proper judiciary to hear and try appeals, as it would more 
properly constitute an upper house, or Senate, being more num¬ 
erous than most of our State Senates, and nearly equal to the 
Senate of the United States. Third, their appointment would 
be identified with the election of delegates to the General 
Conference. 

It is the deliberate opinion of the Committee, that the num¬ 
ber should be so restricted as never to exceed double the number 
of our general superintendents, to act in connection with them. 
We therefore recommend that the Conference of Appeals be 
composed of the Bishops and twelve Elders, to be chosen by 
the General Conference within the first week of its session. 
And we further recommend that the whole number of Annual 
Conferences be apportioned into districts, as nearly equal as 
practicable by Conference bounds; and the Elders so appointed 
should be taken in equal number from the respective districts, 
by nomination of the delegates of the several districts and ap¬ 
pointment of the General Conference. The next subject that 
has occupied our attention is, What powers shall the Confer¬ 
ence, thus formed, possess ? And here, also, we find a difference 
of opinion. We, however, recommend that its power should he 
strictly appellate,, and not possess original jurisdiction. This 
would give to this Conference its marked and distinguishing 
character of Conference of Appeals. 

We, therefore, submit to the General Conference, for their 
consideration and adoption, the following bill in form, to take 
its place in the Discipline as Section iii, Chapter iii, Part i.— 
(See page 76, Journal ). 

The bill above referred to reads as follows: 

It shall be the duty of each Annual Conference to appoint a 


INTRODUCTION" 


xix 


standing Judicial Committee of at least six traveling Elders 
and three local Elders or Deacons, to hear and determine all 
cases of appeals from local preachers or ministers who may have 
been accused, tried, and convicted by a Quarterly Meeting Con¬ 
ference. (And a local preacher so convicted shall be allowed an 
appeal to this Committee, in place of the Annual Conference, 
as provided in Chap. 8, Sec. 3; and the Bishop presiding at the 
next succeeding Anual Conference shall preside, or appoint a 
person to preside, as chairman of the Committee.) Also, it 
shall be the duty of the Quarterly Conference to appoint a 
member of their own circuit or station to appear in behalf of 
the Church, and to present the record of trial with the charge, 
specifications, minutes taken both before a Committee and Quar¬ 
terly Conference, with all documents relating to the case and 
the same shall be the only evidence admitted. The appellant 
shall state the grounds of his appeal, and make his defense, 
without interruption; the representative of the Quarterly Meet¬ 
ing Conference shall respond, and the appellant, or his counsel, 
shall have the privilege of reply, which shall close the pleadings, 
and the Committee of Appeals shall determine the case. 


The General Conference of 1856 met on May. 1 and did 
not adjourn until June 4. 

The Bishops in their Address to the Conference again re¬ 
curred to this subject. They said: 

Similar difficulties are felt in trying appeals by this body. 
Cases may come before you so complex and voluminous, that 
the mere reading of the papers pertaining to one of them could 
scarcely be accomplished in a whole day, to say nothing of the 
time spent in the pleadings. And to expect the fixed attention 
of over two hundred delegates, hurried with other important 
business, two or three days to one case, is unreasonable. Be¬ 
sides, under the present rule, it often occurs that a brother 
expelled or suspended cannot have his appeal heard, and his 
case finally determined, for three years or more. 

To obviate these difficulties two plans have been suggested. 
One is a delegated Annual Conference, composed of one mem¬ 
ber from each Annual Conference, with authority to try all 
appeals, whether from the decision of an Annual Conference 
or that of a select number of it, without occupying the Gen¬ 
eral Conference with them, or subjecting parties to injurious 
and needless delay. The same delegated Annual Conference, 
if deemed advisable, could be authorized to investigate com¬ 
plaints against a Bishop, allowing him an appeal to the General 
Conference. It will be remembered that attention was called 
to this subject at your session of 1848, and that it was resumed 


XX 


INTRODUCTION' 


in 1852, but under the pressure of many interests it was left 
with a mass of unfinished business. The chief objection we 
have heard to this plan is the expense and loss of time involved 
in attending such conference. But it is doubtful whether it 
would cost more time or much more money than the present 
system of trying appeals. The bishops have to meet yearly 
after the Conferences are over, and could easily connect their 
meeting with that of the delegated Annual Conference. 

The other plan suggested for relief, is a District Conference 
of Appeals in every episcopal district, composed of two dele¬ 
gates from each Annual Conference within its jurisdiction, to 
be held annually after the other Conferences are over, and 
authorized to try appeals from the decisions of Annual and 
Quarterly Conferences within its bounds, a Bishop presiding. 
This District Conference, while it would not have cognizance 
of complaints against Bishops, as in the other plan, might 
answer so far as appeals are concerned from the Annual and 
Quarterly Conferences. If the members and ministers of our 
Church have the right of trial by committee, and of appeal to 
a new and competent tribunal, their constitutional rights are 
secured. These are grave matters, and worthy of patient con¬ 
sideration by the General Conference. As cases of trial and 
appeal increase in proportion as our ministers, traveling and 
local, multiply, every year’s experience renders some relief more 
and more desirable (General Conference Journal , 1856, pp. 
194, 195). 


This part of the Episcopal Address was referred to a Se¬ 
lect Committee of seven on May 3. No action was taken 
on the matter until June 3, when so much of the report as 
related to a Conference on Appeals was taken up and adopted 
as follows: 

That part of the Bishops’ Address which relates to a Con¬ 
ference of Appeals, has given your committee great embarrass¬ 
ment. The plans suggested, together with several others had 
under consideration at the General Conference of 1852, have 
been carefully examined. To these have been added a number 
more containing elements of great excellence. But after care¬ 
ful consideration of the whole subject, your Committee enter¬ 
tain serious doubts of the propriety of introducing a new and 
distinct tribunal into our economy. Arrange it as we may, it 
will involve many inconveniences, and much expense, besides 
being liable to various misconstructions. Our present system is 
simple and unobtrusive. Without a parade of forms and high- 
sounding titles, it secures the rights of all our members in an 


INTRODUCTION 


xxi 


eminent degree, while at the same time it protects the Church 
against the influence of unworthy members. 

Your Committee, therefore, beg leave to report, that, in their 
judgment, it is inexpedient for this General Conference to 
provide for a Delegated Annual or Biennial Conference of Ap¬ 
peals, and to relieve the difficulties which call loudest for some 
change, they recommend that the following paragraph be ap¬ 
pended to Section 2, of Part I, of the Discipline, entitled, “Of 
the General Conference/’ namely: 

“The General Conference may try appeals from members of 
Annual Conferences who may have been censured, suspended, 
expelled, or located without their consent by a Committee em¬ 
bracing not less than fifteen of its members, nor more than one 
member from each delegation, who, in the presence of a Bishop 
presiding, and one or more of the secretaries of the Conference 
keeping a faithful record of all the proceedings had, shall have 
full power to hear and determine the case, subject to the rules 
and regulations which govern the said Conference in such pro¬ 
ceedings; and the records made and the papers submitted in 
such trials shall be presented to the Conference, and be filed and 
preserved with the papers of that body” (General Conference 
Journal, 1856, p. 173). 


In the General Conference of 1860, on May 7, it was voted 
that a Committee of Seven be appointed by the President, 
who should confer with the Bishops and report a method by 
which a Court of Appeals should be constituted, “as provided 
for in the Discipline and that the said report should be the 
order of the day “for Tuesday at 10 o’clock a. m.” “Tuesday” 
was the day following the adoption of the resolution. The 
report as adopted was as follows: 

The Committee appointed to take into consideration the 
whole subject of the Court of Appeals, having deliberated care¬ 
fully upon the subject, assisted by the wisdom and counsel of 
the Bishops, have unanimously agreed to make the following 
recommendations, the Bishops unanimously concurring, namely: 

I. The Committee on Appeals shall be a Standing Com¬ 
mittee. 

II. It shall consist of one member from each delegation, to 
be nominated by their respective delegations. The 
parties may challenge for cause, and the Committee 
may excuse members for cause in any given case, only 
so that not less than two thirds of the whole shall 
remain for the trial of each case. 


INTRODUCTION 


xxii 


III. The question of entertaining the Appeals shall be de¬ 

termined by the Committee to Try Appeals. 

IV. The order of procedure in the trial of referred appeal 

cases shall be as follows: 


1. Present the Appeal. 

2. Determine what members of the Committee on 

Appeals, not less than two thirds of the whole, 
shall hear and try the case, a majority of whom 
shall decide. 

3. Read the findings of the case. 

4. Motion to admit. 

5. State the grounds of the Appeal. 

6. Read the Minutes and documents. 

7. Appellant's defense. 

8. Reply of the delegates. 

9. Appellant's reply to the delegates. 

10. Decision (General Conference Journal , vol. 4, 
pp. 93, 94). 


On the next day, May 9, the several Conferences announced 
their nominations of their respective representatives in the 
Court, and they were confirmed by the Conference. As there 
were 47 Annual Conferences at that time there were forty- 
seven members of this Court of Appeals. 

It is evident that this action was taken to relieve the Con¬ 
ference from the necessity of itself trying appeals. While 
it was voted that the Committee on Appeals should be a 
Standing Committee of the Conference, it seems to have been 
clothed with more power than such committees usually pos¬ 
sess. For while it reported back to the Conference its de¬ 
cisions in order that they might be recorded, its decisions 
seem to have been final—the Conference taking no action 
respecting them. 

At the General Conference of 1864, on May 9, the follow¬ 
ing action was taken: 

Whereas, At several General Conferences attention has been 
called to the organization of a Conference of Appeals; be it 
therefore 

Resolved, That the Chair appoint a Committee of Seven to 
take into consideration the propriety of organizing such Con¬ 
ference, to meet in the intervals of the sessions of the General 
Conferences (General Conference Journal , 1864, p. 104). 


INTRODUCTION 


xxiii 

On May 11, the Bishop presiding announced the member¬ 
ship of the Committee. On May 18 the Committee submit¬ 
ted its report which was read and laid on the table to be 
printed (General Conference Journal, 1864, p. 172). On 
May 27 it was taken from the table and referred to the Com¬ 
mittee to consider the Order of Business in Annual Con¬ 
ferences (General Conference Journal, 1864, p. 269). As 
the General Conference adjourned that day, no further action 
was taken on the report. And the report itself nowhere ap¬ 
pears in the Journal. 

At the General Conference of 1868 the Committee on Ap¬ 
peals was made a Standing Committee (General Conference 
Journal, 1868, pp. 96, 620). And it was also provided that the 
Committee should be divided into two Sections, and that 
these two Sections alternately, beginning with the first Sec¬ 
tion, be charged with the appeal cases pending before the 
General Conference (General Conference Journal, 1868, 
p. 154). As there were at that time fifty-five Annual Con¬ 
ferences and each one of these Conferences was represented in 
the Committee of Appeals by one of its members, the action 
taken can be readily understood. 

At the General Conference of 1876, on May 2, L. C. Queal 
moved that a Committee of fifteen, to be known as the Ju¬ 
diciary Committee, be constituted, to which all questions of 
law contained in the records and documents submitted to it 
from Judicial Conferences, and including also questions of 
appeal, be submitted. K. P: Jervis moved, as an amendment, 
that the Committee consist of twelve, one from each General 
Conference District, to be appointed by the delegates of the 
districts respectively. 

The motion as amended by Mr. Jervis was adopted (Gen¬ 
eral Conference Journal, 1876, p. 67). 

The Committee was named by the Conference on the next 
day. The only layman appointed was George G. Reynolds, 
one of the two lay delegates representing the New York East 
Conference. Mr. Reynolds had been a member of the Gen¬ 
eral Conference of 1872, which was the first General Con¬ 
ference in which laymen were privileged to sit. He also sat 
in the Conference of 1884, and was the first lawyer who ever 
sat on the Committee on Judiciary. Joseph Cummings was 


XXIV 


INTRODUCTION 


selected by the Committee to be its Chairman. He bad been 
President of Wesleyan University from 1857 until 1875. In 
1881 be became President of Northwestern University and 
held that position until bis death in 1890. He bad been a 
member of the General Conference of 1864 and in the sub¬ 
sequent Conferences of 1880 and 1884. 

On May 9 the Chairman appeared before the General 
Conference and asked a definition of the duties of the Ju¬ 
diciary Committee. After considerable interchange of views, 
the following resolution was adopted: 

Resolved , That the Judiciary Committee be instructed to 
consider, and report their decision on, all questions of law 
coming up to us from Judicial Conferences which may be re¬ 
ferred to that Committee. 

That it was understood that the Committee on Judiciary at 
that time was not to consider all questions of law which might 
be brought before the Conference is evident. For after the 
adoption of the resolution above set forth the Journal records 
that “John W. Stone then, by consent, withdrew the paper 
from the Michigan Conference containing points of law 
raised upon the trial of H. C. Peck, and referred it to the 
Committee on the Episcopacy.” 

The labors of this first Committee on Judiciary do not 
appear to have been onerous, as it made only one report. 
That related to the action of a Judicial Conference held at 
Chattanooga in 1874. 

The General Conference of 1908 authorized the appoint¬ 
ment of a Commission on Judicial Procedure which consisted 
of three ministers—Charles W. Smith (afterward Bishop), 
William W. Evans, and Richard J. Cooke (afterward 
Bishop). The laymen were R. T. Miller, T. H. Anderson, 
and Robert F. Raymond. The last two do not seem to have 
been members of the Conference. Mr. Raymond was a judge 
of a Massachusetts court. Whether the other two laymen 
were lawyers I do not know. The Commission submitted a 
report to the General Conference of 1912 (General Confer¬ 
ence Journal, p. 1303). That portion of their report which 
provided for the Final Court of Appeals was as follows: 

There shall be a Final Court of Appeals. This Court shall 
have power to hear and determine all appeals coming to it in 


INTRODUCTION 


XXV 


due course in the Administration of the Church, as hereinafter 
provided, and any other question of law which may be referred 
to it by the General Conference. 

This Court shall consist of fifteen members, namely: Three 
Bishops, six Ministers, and six Laymen, who shall be chosen 
by the General Conference as hereinafter provided. 

The General Conference shall appoint a Committee consist¬ 
ing of three Bishops, three Ministers, and three Laymen, who 
shall nominate the members for election by the General Con¬ 
ference. The Episcopal Members shall be nominated and elected 
quadrennially. At the first election, three Ministers and three 
Laymen shall be nominated and elected to serve for four years, 
and three Ministers and three Laymen to serve for eight years, 
and thereafter a similar Committee shall make nominations to 
fill all vacancies occurring by expiration of term or otherwise. 
In all cases the term of service shall begin with the adjourn¬ 
ment of the General Conference. After the first election all 
elections to membership in the Court, except of episcopal mem¬ 
bers and to fill vacancies, shall be for the full term of eight 
years. 

All vacancies occurring in the Membership of this Court in 
the interim between the sessions of the General Conference shall 
be filled by the Court until the succeeding General Conference. 

No one shall be eligible to election to the General Conference 
during his term of service in the Final Court of Appeals. 

Following each General Conference the Final Court of Ap¬ 
peals shall meet at the call of the Bishops for the purpose of 
organization and the transaction of business, and thereafter it 
shall meet at such times and places as it shall itself determine; 
provided, that it shall always meet at the same time and place 
as the General Conference and continue in session until the 
final adjournment of the same. 

Said Court of Appeals shall organize for the quadrennium 
at its first meeting after the adjournment of the General Con¬ 
ference by electing one of its members President and one Sec¬ 
retary; it shall adopt rules for the conduct of its business. It 
shall* certify its decisions promptly to the General Conference 
when in session and its ad interim decisions shall be certified 
to that body at its first session after they have been rendered, 
and with each decision shall be filed a brief statement of rea¬ 
sons therefor. 

A majority of the entire Final Court of Appeals shall be 
necessarv to render a decision, and such decision shall be final. 

The decisions of this Court shall be final, except in cases in¬ 
volving a constitutional question. Should the General Confer¬ 
ence by a majority of those present and voting dissent from a 
decision of this Court on a constitutional question, the General 


XXVI 


INTRODUCTION 


Conference shall, in that case, provide for the submission of 
the question to the Annual Conferences, and to the Lay Elec¬ 
toral Conferences which shall be called for this purpose, during 
the succeeding calendar year; and if a majority of all the 
members of the several Annual Conferences present and voting 
and a majority of all the members of the Lay Electoral Con¬ 
ferences present and voting shall concur with the General Con¬ 
ference, then the dissenting opinion shall be the law of the 
Church; otherwise the decision of the Final Court of Appeals 
shall stand (General Conference Journal, 1912, pp. 1322- 
1323). 

The above proposal does not appear to have come to a vote. 

In the General Conference of 1912 Dr. A. B. Leonard, 
Corresponding Secretary of the Board of Foreign Missions, 
introduced the following resolution: 

Resolved, That the present Committee on Judiciary shall be 
continued in service during the coming quadrennium, to hear 
and decide questions of law arising in the administration of the 
Church, that would properly come before the General Confer¬ 
ence on appeal; such decisions to be reported to the General 
Conference of 1916 and to be subject to its approval. 

The Committee shall meet during the quadrennium at the 
call of the Bishops, at such place as the Committee may select. 
Seven members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of 
business. 

Edgar Blake moved to amend by inserting the following: 

Said Judiciary Committee shall pass upon the constitution¬ 
ality of the acts of the General Conference. 

The amendment was accepted by Doctor Leonard. On mo¬ 
tion of W. L. McDowell, the resolution was laid on the table 
(General Conference Journal, 1912, p. 488). 

The General Conference of 1916 sent to the Committee 
on Judiciary a memorial presented by Charles A. J. Walker, 
of the Central German Conference, proposing a plan for a 
Court of Appeals. The Committee reported adversely upon 
the plan he submitted, stating its reasons for disapproving 
it (General Conference Journal, 1916, pp. 500-501). And 
the report was adopted by the Conference on May 25 (Gen¬ 
eral Conference Journal, 1916, p. 431). In its report the 
Committee said: 

The plan submitted provides that the decisions of the court 


INTRODUCTION 


XXVll 


shall be submitted to the General Conference, and are not to 
become effective until approved by the General Conference. 
Such a requirement seems to us, in a large degree, to negative 
the good results which the creation of a Supreme Court of 
Appeals might otherwise accomplish. If such a Court could 
be authorized to finally decide all appeals each year without 
being compelled to submit their decisions to the General Con¬ 
ference every four years, the advantage of the proposal would 
be most beneficial. 

There were other objections to the plan proposed which the 
Committee set forth in its report . 1 

The Commission on Unification of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, sub¬ 
mitted to the General Conference of 1920 the draft of a pro¬ 
posed Constitution for the Methodist Church which it was 
hoped would be created. The Constitution which the Com¬ 
mission proposed was not acceptable to the General Confer¬ 
ence to which it was submitted. 

Article VII of the Constitution as it was submitted re¬ 
lated to The Judicial Council, and was as follows: 

Section 1. There shall be, and hereby is, established a Ju¬ 
dicial Council, whose decisions shall be final, except as herein 
otherwise provided. 

Section 2. The Judicial Council shall be composed of fifteen 
members, ministers and lay members, to be nominated by the 
General Superintendents by a two thirds vote and elected by 
the General Conference. 

Section 3. Members of the Judicial Council shall serve for 
eight years, or until their successors are elected, and shall be 
eligible for reelection. The term of each member, except as 
provided in Section 9 of this Article, shall expire at the close 
of the second General Conference succeeding that at which he 
was elected, except that seven members of the first Judicial 
Council shall be elected for four years, and thereafter their suc¬ 
cessors for eight years. 

Section 4. Members of the Judicial Council shall not be 
eligible to membership in the General or Regional Conferences, 
nor shall they hold any other connectional office, nor serve on 
any connectional board during their term. After the first 
election no member of the General Conference or of a Regional 
Conference shall, during his term of service, be eligible to mem¬ 
bership in the Judicial Council. No member of the Judicial 

*See p. 201 of this work. 



xxviii 


INTRODUCTION 


Council shall hear, review, or determine any case before the 
Judicial Council to which he may be in any way related, nor 
shall he sit in the Council while such case is being examined. 

Section 5. The members of the Judicial Council shall con¬ 
vene at the close of each General Conference, and shall organize 
by choosing from their number, by ballot, a president and a 
secretary; provided, that the members of the first Judicial 
Council shall organize immediately upon their election. The 
Secretary shall keep a record of all proceedings, together with 
the records and documents in each case, with the decision and 
reasons for the same, and shall report such decisions to the 
parties involved and also to the succeeding General Conference. 
All decisions of the Judicial Council shall be in writing. 

Section 6. (1) The Judicial Council shall have full power 
to review upon appeal on constitutional grounds the acts of the 
General Conference, the Associate General Conferences, the 
Regional Conferences, and Annual Conferences; to hear and 
determine all other appeals and matters coming to it in course 
of lawful procedure; provided that no appeal by any Confer¬ 
ence shall be entertained unless the same has been taken by at 
least one fifth of said Conference, present and voting. 

(2) The Judicial Council shall have access to all records 
and documents which it may call for, or which may be trans¬ 
mitted to it from any Conference. 

(3) The Judicial Council shall also have power to arrest an 
action of a connectional board or other connectional body, when 
such action is brought before it by appeal by one fifth of the 
members of said body, present and voting, or by the General 
Superintendents. 

(4) In all cases the decision of the Judicial Council shall 
be final, except as provided in Article Y, Section 2, Sub-section 

(ii). 

Section 7. The Judicial Council shall prescribe rules and 
regulations for its government and methods of procedure for 
the hearing and disposition of appeals, which rules and 
methods shall be printed in the Discipline, and shall not be 
changed or altered during the quadrennium, without due 
notice. 

Section 8. Two thirds of the Judicial Council shall consti¬ 
tute a quorum. Constitutional matters shall be decided by a 
majority vote of the entire Judicial Council. All other appeals 
shall be decided by a majority of those present and voting. 

Section 9. The Judicial Council shall meet at the same time 
and place as the General Conference and shall continue in ses¬ 
sion until the final adjournment of the General Conference; 
provided, that if during the session of a General Conference 


INTRODUCTION 


XXIX 


the appeal of a Bishop is pending, the Judicial Council shall 
defer its time of adjournment until it disposes of said appeal. 

The Judicial Council shall convene during each quadrennium 
at such times and places as it may deem necessary to hear and 
determine appeals. 

Section 10. Vacancies in its membership shall be tilled by the 
Judicial Council from the order, ministerial or lay, in which 
the vacancy occurs, until the next meeting of the General Con¬ 
ference, which may then till the vacancy for the remainder of 
the unexpired term (General Conference Journal, 1920, pp. 
1394-1396). 

Article VII as drafted undoubtedly may be imperfect in 
some of its provisions, but nevertheless is not without value 
and is deserving of careful study in any attempt which here¬ 
after may possibly be made to remedy the situation which 
now exists. 

It remains to call attention to the Plan approved by the 
Joint Commission on Unification at Cleveland, Ohio, July 
22, 1923, and which is to be submitted to the General Con¬ 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church at Springfield, 
Massachusetts, in 1924. Article IX of the Plan provides 
the Judicial Council and is as follows: 

Article IX 

THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL 

1. The General Conference shall, at its first session, provide 
for a Judicial Council, to be composed of an equal number of 
members elected by each Jurisdictional Conference, and the 
Judicial Council shall provide its own methods of procedure. 

2. The Judicial Council shall be authorized to review, upon 
appeal of one fifth of the members of the General Conference or 
of either Jurisdictional Conference or on the appeal of a ma¬ 
jority of the Bishops on constitutional grounds, the acts of the 
General Conference and of the Jurisdictional Conferences; to 
hear and to determine all other appeals and matters coming to it 
in the course of legal procedure. 

3. The Judicial Council shall have the right on its own mo¬ 
tion, subject to such rules and regulations as shall be determined 
by the General Conference, to review the legislative acts of the 
General Conference or of either Jurisdictional Conference and 
to pass on the constitutionality of said acts. 

4. The Judicial Council shall also have power to arrest an 
action of a Connectional Board or other Connectional Body 
when such action is brought before it by appeal by one fifth of 


XXX 


INTRODUCTION 


the members of said Body, present and voting, or by a majority 
of the Bishops. 

5. All decisions of the Judicial Council shall be made by a 
majority of the total membership of the Council. 

It would seem to be the intention that the judicial powers 
heretofore exercised by the General Conference shall be with¬ 
drawn and vested exclusively in the Judicial Council, that 
its decisions shall be final. If that is the intention, it might 
be more clearly expressed. The Constitution of the United 
States in Article III declares “The judicial power of the 
United States shall be vested in” the courts mentioned therein. 

The Plan also provides for a Judicial Council composed of 
an equal number of members. The number, in my opinion, 
should be unequal, as all decisions must be made by a ma¬ 
jority of the whole body. 

It is proposed to give to the Judicial Council the power 
on its own motion to pass on the constitutionality of the acts 
of the General Conference. No civil court in the United 
States is authorized on its own motion to pass on the validity 
of a legislative act. But in thus directing attention to what 
seem defects in Article IX, it is done in no captious spirit 
but in the hope that they may be remedied before the Con¬ 
stitution of the reunited Church is finally adopted. 

Objections to Present System 

I have deemed it proper to submit at length the sugges¬ 
tions which have heretofore been made for relieving the Gen¬ 
eral Conference of the duty of passing upon judicial ques¬ 
tions. All will admit that a delay of four years in the settle¬ 
ment of a judicial question, which is possible under the pres¬ 
ent system, constitutes a serious evil. It is also true that so 
large a body as the General Conference is, from its very na¬ 
ture, not well adapted to the consideration of such questions. 
I venture to add that a Committee on Judiciary sitting for 
the consideration of so many cases as now come before it 
during the sessions of a General Conference, finds itself more 
or less embarrassed in being compelled, in the short time it 
has at its command, to give to all the questions which come 
before it the consideration which they ought to receive. The 
subject certainly deserves thoughtful consideration, and if 


INTRODUCTION 


XXXI 


the General Conference some time should think it wise to 
create a small commission to take the whole matter under 
advisement and report to a subsequent General Conference 
its mature conclusions on this subject, a plan could possibly 
be worked out which would remedy the evils which now ex¬ 
ist, and which might meet with the approval of the Church. 
It is not well to be too sanguine, however, that any plan will 
be devised which will he likely to command the approval of 
all, as the inherent difficulties of the situation are perhaps 
not fully appreciated by the great majority even of those who 
sit in the General Conference itself. 

The Journals of the General Conference reveal how easy 
it is for a body en masse to allow itself to be influenced at 
times by its feelings and its prejudices. A notable illustra¬ 
tion of it is found in the proceedings of the General Con¬ 
ference of 1868, which met in Chicago during the pendency 
of the Impeachment Proceedings against Andrew Johnson, 
President of the United States. The Constitution gives to 
the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, and it pro¬ 
vides that when sitting for that purpose Senators shall be on 
oath, and it directs that when the President of the United 
States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside, and that no 
person shall he convicted without the concurrence of two 
thirds of the members present. The trial of Andrew John¬ 
son was in the highest degree a judicial proceeding, and 
Senators were sworn to vote according to the law and the 
evidence. The result shows that a large number of the Sen¬ 
ators themselves did not vote according to the law and the 
evidence hut solely because of party feeling and partisan 
animosities, and that an organized political effort was carried 
on throughout the country to influence the votes of Senators 
by duress. Inasmuch as Senators under oath yielded to it 
in many cases, it is little wonder if the General Conference 
itself was misled by its feelings into taking most improper 
action, concerning a matter which was purely judicial and 
upon which it was ill qualified to express an opinion. 

In the General Conference on May 13, 1868, Gilbert 
Haven, at that time a ministerial delegate from the New 
England Conference, introduced resolutions which read as 
follows: 


XXX11 


INTRODUCTION 


Whereas, The most solemn act to which the government of 
the United States, in its judicial capacity, has been called in 
all its history is near its consummation; and 

Whereas, The failure of the impeachment of the President 
will subject the greatest of our generals, and all under his 
authority to the power of an infuriated Executive, who has 
opposed every law that has been made to heal the nation on 
the only true and permanent basis of equal rights to loyal men; 
and 

Whereas, His release will also reanimate the dying embers 
of rebellion throughout all the South, sacrifice the lives of 
many of our fellow citizens, and thus cast all that region into 
terror, distress, and danger; therefore, 

Resolved, 1. That the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, now in session, solemnly and earnestly in¬ 
vokes upon the Senate of the United States the blessing of 
Almighty God, that they may be guided in the great respon¬ 
sibility now devolving upon them, that tyrannical usurpation 
may be rebuked, the authority of the law may be maintained 
against the most dangerous hostility of an Executive who 
avows his irresponsibility to its obligation, and that the peace 
and safety of our fellow citizens in all the South may be 
secured. 

Resolved, 2. That we hereby assign the hour of nine to ten 
o’clock on Friday morning next to be devoted to prayer to our 
God and Saviour, that he may endue our Senators with wis¬ 
dom, and guide them in the duty they are soon to discharge, 
so that his righteousness and peace may, through them, in our 
beloved land spring forth before all nations. 

After some discussion these resolutions were laid on the table. 
Thereafter Randolph S. Foster, at the time a ministerial 
delegate from the New York Conference, offered as his own 
the same resolutions and moved their adoption. They were 
ruled out of order. Then William L. Harris, at the time a 
ministerial delegate from the Central Ohio Conference, 
moved to take from the table the first paragraph of the pre¬ 
amble and the last of the above resolutions, and his motion 
was in like manner laid on the table. Thereupon Randolph 
S. Foster offered the following substitute, which was accepted 
and adopted: 

Whereas, As a body of ministers, we have great confidence in 
the efficacy of prayer in behalf of our country at all times, and 
especially in time of peril and civil trouble; therefore 


INTRODUCTION 


xxxiii 

Resolved, That we set apart one hour of the Friday morn¬ 
ing’s session, from eight to nine o’clock, for prayer for our 
country. 

On May 14 Gilbert Haven introduced a resolution which, 
after stating that the most important act to which the gov¬ 
ernment of the United States, in its judicial capacity, had 
been called in all its history was near its consummation, de^ 
dared “That the General Conference of the Methodist Epis¬ 
copal Church, now in session, solemnly and earnestly invokes 
upon the Senators of the United States the blessing of Al- 
mighty God that they may be guided aright in the great re¬ 
sponsibility now devolving upon them.” It also proposed 
to devote an hour the next morning to prayer to God that he 
“imbue our Senators with firmness and wisdom, and so direct 
them in the duty which they are about to discharge that his 
righteousness and peace may spring forth before all nations.” 
The resolution was laid on the table. 

Later in the day Bishop Simpson “with the concurrence of 
other Bishops” read the following paper for the consideration 
of the Conference: 

Whereas, There is now pending in the Senate of the United 
States the most important question which has ever engaged 
its attention; and 

Whereas, The evidence and pleadings in this case have been 
fully spread before the people so that all may form an en¬ 
lightened opinion; and 

Whereas, We are deeply impressed that upon its rightful 
decision will largely depend the safety and prosperity of our 
nation, as well as the religious privileges of our ministers and 
members in many parts of the South; and 

Whereas, Painful rumors are in circulation, that, partly by 
unworthy jealousies, and partly by corrupt influences, pecuniary 
and otherwise, most actively employed, efforts are being made 
to influence Senators improperly, and to prevent them from 
performing their high duty; therefore 

Resolved, That we hereby appoint an hour of prayer, from 
nine to ten o’clock, a. m., to-morrow, to invoke humbly and 
earnestly the mercy of God upon our nation, and to beseech 
him to save our Senators from error, and to so influence them 
that their decision shall be in truth and righteousness, and 
shall increase the security and prosperity of our beloved Union. 

Thereupon the previous action, adopting the resolution 


XXXIV 


INTRODUCTION 


offered by Randolph S. Foster, was reconsidered and laid on 
the table, and the paper presented by Bishop Simpson was 
adopted. 

At the next General Conference Doctor Haven, Doctor 
Harris and Doctor Foster were elected Bishops. They were 
all of them men of distinguished ability, and they com¬ 
manded, with Bishop Simpson, the respect and confidence of 
the Church. 

It is necessary to remember that on May 11 the case was 
closed and the vote was not taken in the Senate until May 16, 
and those who advocated the conviction of the President were 
making frantic efforts to influence Senators thought to be 
doubtful and to cause them to find the President guilty and 
remove him from his office. The Chicago Tribune, then, as 
now, a Republican paper, referring to the attempt which 
was being made to influence the votes of Senators in an edi¬ 
torial on May 14, said: 

“The man who demands that each Republican Senator 
shall blindly vote for conviction upon each article is a mad¬ 
man or a knave. Why a Senator, or any number of Senators, 
should be at liberty to vote as conscience dictates on any of 
the articles, provided there be a conviction on some one of 
them, and not be at liberty to vote conscientiously unless a 
conviction be secured, is only to be explained upon the theory 
that the President is expected to be convicted no matter 
whether Senators think he has been guilty or not. We have 
protested, and do now protest, against the degradation and 
prostitution of the Republican party to an exercise of power 
so revolting that the people will be justified in hurling it 
from place at the first opportunity.” 

Horace White in his biography of Lyman Trumbull, one 
of the Senators who voted to acquit Johnson, has this to say 
of the action of our General Conference: 

Even the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, then in session in Chicago, was called upon to lend a 
hand, and a motion was made on the 13th of May for an hour 
of prayer in aid of impeachment. An aged delegate moved to 
lay that proposal on the table, saying: 

“My understanding is that impeachment is a judicial pro¬ 
ceeding and that Senators are acting under an oath. Are we 
to pray to the Almighty that they may violate their oaths?” 


INTRODUCTION 


XXXV 


The motion to lay on the table prevailed. On the follow¬ 
ing day, however. Bishop Simpson offered a new preamble and 
resolution, omitting any expression of opinion that Senators 
ought to vote for conviction, but reciting that “painful rumors 
are in circulation that, partly by unworthy jealousies and 
partly by corrupt influences, pecuniary and otherwise, most 
actively employed, efforts were being made to influence Senators 
improperly, and to prevent them from performing their high 
duty”; therefore, an hour should be set apart in the following 
day for prayer to beseech God “to save our Senators from 
error.” This cunningly drawn resolution was adopted without 
opposition. It was supposed to have been aimed at Senator 
Willey, of West Virginia, rather than at the Throne of Grace. 

Of course no one would accuse the General Conference of 
deliberate moral fault, and this incident is recited solely to 
indicate to what emotional tidal waves such a body can be 
subjected. 

After the acquittal of the President the New York Times 
in its issue of May 18, 1868, declared that when the heat of 
party passion had passed away, sober and reflecting men 
would wonder how they could have been betrayed “into such 
a violation of common sense and common decency.” It de¬ 
clared that the nation had escaped “a black and lasting stain” 
on its reputation, and it was “one of the narrowest escapes 
any nation has ever made from one of the greatest dangers 
which any nation has ever encountered.” 

The verdict of history has been that the President’s ac¬ 
quittal, although accomplished by the narrow margin of one 
vote, was a victory for the country and the Constitution. The 
London Times in its issue of May 18, 1868, declared that it 
was the Constitution of the United States which was on trial 
in the Senate. And in its issue of May 27, it declared that 
the failure of the impeachment was “a matter of intense 
gratification to every well wisher of the American republic.” 

James Pord Rhodes, in his History of the United States, 1 
declares: “The impeachment managers did not prove their 
charges, and the minority of the Senate undoubtedly gave a 
righteous judgment. . . . The glory of the trial was the 
action of the seven recusant Senators. Macaulay has immor¬ 
talized seven bishops, and it was easier to disobey the man¬ 
date of the unpopular James II than to oppose the will of the 

1 Vol. vi, pp. 266, 267. 



XXX VI 


INTRODUCTION 


American Republican party of 1868. . . . Hard as was their 
immediate future, they have received their meed from pos¬ 
terity, their monument in the admiring tribute of all who 
know how firm they stood in an hour of supreme trial.” 

As a further indication of how far removed from the 
orderly procedure of the courts the action of the General 
Conference, sitting as a court, may sometimes stray, attention 
may be called to the action of the General Conference of 1920 
on the reports of the majority and minority of the Committee 
on Judiciary concerning the Doctrinal Test. These reports, 
having been previously printed in full in the Daily Advocate, 
were discussed on Saturday, May 22. A resolution to sub¬ 
stitute the minority for the majority report was lost on the 
same day by a vote of 359 for and 375 against. The ma¬ 
jority report was then declared to have received 384 votes as 
against 369 votes. The Bishop presiding announced the 
majority report adopted “subject to such corrections as would 
insure accuracy of the vote.” The vote taken was by ayes 
and noes. On Monday, May 24, the Secretary of the Con¬ 
ference announced as the corrected vote on the adoption of 
the majority report: ayes 384; noes 369, which was exactly 
the vote as announced on Saturday when the vote was taken. 
It was then voted that “to-morrow morning all who desire to 
correct or change their votes may be given the privilege with¬ 
out debate.” “The Judges” were not only allowed on Tues¬ 
day to change the vote cast on Saturday, but the absentees of 
Saturday were allowed to vote on Tuesday notwithstand¬ 
ing the fact that they had not heard the arguments and that 
it did not appear that they had read them or had read the 
reports of the Committee. The result was that the vote, as 
finally announced on Tuesday, showed a total of 815 as against 
an original total of 753, an addition of 62 to that originally 
cast And as the vote finally stood the ayes numbered 363 
and the noes 452, and a report was defeated by 89 votes which 
was originally carried by 15. It was commonly understood 
that certain influential persons had taken advantage of the 
opportunity afforded to use their influence with certain of 
the delegates to cause them to change their vote—in the in¬ 
terval which elapsed between the original and final taking 
of the vote. 


INTRODUCTION 


XXXVll 


This sort of thing in a General Conference perhaps never 
before happened. It ought, of course, not to happen at all. 
In a court it never could or would happen. In a General 
Conference it may never happen again, but it has to be men¬ 
tioned when we are considering the defects in the present 
machinery. There never has existed a court in any land 
which has not, at some time, made a wrong decision. That a 
General Conference should now and then make a mistake is 
not surprising. Although I wrote the majority opinion in 
the Doctrinal Test Case, and all the judges on the Commit¬ 
tee concurred in it, with one exception, I thought then, and 
think now, that that opinion was right. But I do not criticize 
any who thought otherwise. I do, however, criticize the man¬ 
ner in which the final vote was taken and announced. I hope 
it may not occur again. No court in England or America 
would decide a case in that way. It only shows how difficult 
it is for a body as large as a General Conference, and com¬ 
posed of members who for the most part are not lawyers, to 
proceed as courts proceed in the decision of judicial questions. 

The work of the Committee on Judiciary has become in¬ 
creasingly burdensome. Without ready access to the opinions 
of all former Committees and former General Conferences 
the difficulties have been made greater. The publication 
of this book will not only lighten the labors of the Com¬ 
mittee on Judiciary but will make it possible for the Method¬ 
ist Episcopal Church to understand better than ever before 
the law which governs it. 

Henry Wade Rogers. 

New York City. 















PART I 


1792-1920 























I 


EARLY JUDICIAL PROCEDURE 
1792-1832 

O NLY by gradual developments has the Methodist 
Episcopal Church come to the appointment and opera¬ 
tion of the present Committee on Judiciary. For 
many years such a Committee had no existence at the ses¬ 
sions of the General Conference. In those earlier quadren¬ 
nial gatherings there stand out in striking perspective the 
figures of distinguished leaders who were slowly framing our 
denominational law. They were men of thinking surprisingly 
clear; they had a keen sense of ethical values; they were 
searchers after the most equitable and complete ecclesiastical 
code. Yet their statutory conclusions were often tentative, 
and were not infrequently amended at subsequent Gen¬ 
eral Conferences. The Journals of those earlier sessions con¬ 
tain a graphic story of experiment and change ; and to the 
student of our church history this inchoate condition is 
one of engaging interest. 

There were, however, in the processes of the earlier Gen¬ 
eral Conferences foreshadowings of the more logical and 
satisfactory methods which now obtain. From the search 
for the ultimate form of procedure there has ensued by 
gradual steps the Committee on Judiciary as now constituted 
and operative at the present sessions of the General Con¬ 
ference. Its manner of selection, its numerical member^ 
ship, and its scope of activity have been specifically desig¬ 
nated, as will later be shown. Nor is it venturesome to 
assume that this Committee is now an indispensable in¬ 
terpreter of law, in the economy of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

Prior to the creation of the Committee on Judiciary, 
decisions on various law" questions, as also the framing of 
new regulations for the government of the Church, were com- 

1 


Committee on 
Judiciary an 
evolution 


Committee 

indispensable 


2 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Authority of 
J ournals 


Journal of 1792 
published 


mitted to the action of the General Conference itself, fol¬ 
lowing the motions of individuals or the reports of Com¬ 
mittees. As for appeals from the findings of Annual Con¬ 
ferences, these were presented by the individuals concerned 
or by their representatives, and were apparently without 
exception heard in the full session of the quadrennial body. 

In reviewing the different methods of procedure which 
have prevailed in the judicial history of the Church resort 
must be had to the Journals of the successive General Con¬ 
ferences since that of 1792 1 as the chief source of authority. 
As editor of these quadrennial records from 1796 to 1836, 
inclusive, Dr. John M’Clintock writes that the Journal of 
1792 was never printed to his knowledge, and that he could 
not find the original copy. 2 A hundred years afterward, the 
General Conference of 1892 instructed the Book Agents at 
Cincinnati to “collect and arrange” the existing data re¬ 
lating to the Conference of 1792 and to “publish the same 
in uniform pages with the General Conference Journals ” 
inserting an “explanatory preface.” 3 This work of editor¬ 
ship was subsequently committed to a prominent Church 
jurist, and contains a valuable fund of information as to 
the doings of that first quadrennial session of the General 
Conference. 4 

The following is the outline of early procedure which is 
found in the J ournals of the successive General Conferences 
from 1792 till that of 1836, so far as appeals and Disci¬ 
plinary changes are concerned: 

1. Period from 1792 to 1816 

At the sessions of the General Conference, as included in 
these years, there is no record of individual appeals for the 
reversal of verdicts imposed. As early as 1792 the question 


1 “The first regular General Conference.”—Jesse Lee, in his Short His¬ 
tory, p. 176. 

2 Journals of the General Conference, Volume I, Preface, p. 4. 

3 Journal, 1892, p. 504. 

4 Journal of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
1792. Reconstructed by Rev. Thomas Benjamin Neely, D.D., Ph.D., 
LL.D. [now Bishop]. 



EARLY PROCEDURE: 1792-1832 


3 


was asked at the Annual Conferences: “Who are expelled 
from the Connection ?” 5 Yet not for twenty-four years did 
there occur the appeal of any minister of pioneer Methodism 
from the finding of his Conference. Disciplinary changes Disciplinary 
also did not always originate with the report of an existing changes 
Committee, but were made as well upon individual mo¬ 
tion and after consideration in open Conference. By such 
elementary methods was the new and highly unorganized 
Church seeking to perfect its rules and regulations. 

2. Period from 1816 to 1836 

At the session of the General Conference of 1816 came First 
the first ministerial appeal from the decision of an Annual appeal 
Conference in the history of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

In 1792 the provision had been inserted in the Discipline 
that “an appeal to the ensuing General Conference” should 
be “allowed” ; 6 and in 1808 the Restrictive Rule, now known 
as Section 5 Paragraph 46, of the Constitution of the 
Church, had been framed, declaring that the right of appeal 
should not be done away. 7 A former member of the Phila¬ 
delphia Conference, who “had been expelled for denying 
the divinity of Jesus Christ,” in the exercise of this right 
presented his appeal to the General Conference of 1816. 

The case was heard by the Conference itself; opportunity 
was given the appellant to plead his cause; and the decision 
of the Philadelphia Conference was confirmed. 8 

Thenceforth till 1836 all appeals from Annual Conference Appeals 

a a till 1836 

decisions 9 were without exception heard by the General Con¬ 
ference itself. It should, however, be noted that in 1820 (a) 
a motion for a Select Committee in the case of one appeal 
did not prevail; and that (b) one other appeal was first 


5 History of the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, by Robert 
Emory, p. 117; History of the Revisions of the Discipline of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, by David Sherman, D.D., p. 137. 

•Emory, p. 188; Sherman, p. 200. 

7 Emory, p. 113; Sherman, p. 134. 

8 Journal , 1816, p. 138. 

9 The total number of appeals to these successive General Conferences 
was as follows: In 1820, five appeals; in 1824, five; in 1828, seven; in 
1832, two. 



4 .REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Interpretations 
and law changes 


considered by a “Committee on Eights and Privileges,” 10 
and its report acted upon by the General Conference. Also, 
that in 1824 (c) one instance was referred to a Select Com¬ 
mittee of three, whose report was duly received and acted 
upon. 

During this period from 1816 to 1836 all interpretations 
of existing law and all changes in the Discipline were yet 
made on motion of some individual member of the General 
Conference or on the report of some Committee other than 
a Committee on Judiciary. There was as yet no sugges¬ 
tion of the method of procedure which now obtains. 

10 This Committee, in the matter of ministerial appeals, does not again 
appear between 1820 and 1836. 



II 


EARLY JUDICIAL PROCEDURE 
1836 

A T this quadrennial gathering there came a new de¬ 
parture in the practice of the General Conference 
which must be particularly interesting to the stu¬ 
dent of our legal history. Though the old order was to 
be resumed in succeeding Conferences, the temporary change 
was nevertheless most notable. So advanced, in fact, was 
the step as to here justify the description of the acts of 1836 
in a Section by itself. 

On the third day of the session a “Judiciary Committee” 
of five was ordered, on motion of the influential Nathan 
Bangs. To it were to be referred “all appeals or complaints 
of any character against the acts and doings of an Annual 
Conference”; and its duty was “to examine all documents 
committed to them, and to report whether in their opinion 
the complainants are legally entitled to he heard before this 
Conference, and, if not, what disposition should be made 
of their case or cases.” 1 

This Judiciary Committee—three times called “the Com¬ 
mittee on the Judiciary”—reported on four appeals made 
to the General Conference, and, in each instance, action 
was taken on these reports. 

Various other matters not designated in the resolution of 
Nathan Bangs were also referred by the General Conference 
to this Judiciary Committee. During the session it pre¬ 
sented the following resolutions on the division of property, 
in the event of the division of an Annual Conference, which 
were adopted: 

The Judiciary Committee were instructed by a resolution of 
the Conference to inquire whether it be just and right, when an 
Annual Conference is divided, for that Conference to retain all 


Judiciary 

Committee 


Appeals 
of 1836 


Resolutions on 
division of 
Conference 
property 


1 Journal, 1836, p. 433. 


5 



6 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Report on 
slave-holding 


property and legacies from the new which belonged to them 
jointly when together; and whether, when the principal may 
not be divided, the proceeds of such property or legacies should 
not be divided in proportion to the members composing each 
Conference. 

On the subject the Committee report the following resolu¬ 
tions, viz.: 

Resolved, 1. By the delegates of the several Annual Confer¬ 
ences in General Conference assembled, that it is recommended 
to every Annual Conference contemplating a division to pro¬ 
vide, where it can be done legally, for an equitable division of 
the property belonging to said Conference, so as to give each 
of those made out of it its proportion according to the num¬ 
ber of its members, as nearly as may be. 

Resolved, 2. That, when a Conference is divided without 
having made such previous arrangement for a division of prop¬ 
erty, such arrangement shall be made as soon thereafter as may 
be; in which case, the property should be divided according to 
the number of members composing each; and, if the principal 
of any property or legacies belonging to said Conference may 
not be divided, the proceeds thereof should be annually divided 
between them in the same ratio. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

David Young, Chairman. 2 

The Judiciary Committee also presented its report on 
the petitions received from the Lancaster and Westmoreland 
Circuits, of the Baltimore Conference, regarding slave-hold¬ 
ing. This report was adopted, having relation to an issue 
which is now of the far past. Yet it is here inserted, be¬ 
cause it contains an early consideration of another prin¬ 
ciple, the same being the relation to an Annual Conference 
of an applicant for reception or orders. The report, as 
adopted, was as follows: 

The Judiciary Committee, to whom was referred the petition 
of the official members of the Methodist Episcopal Church on 
Lancaster Circuit, Baltimore Conference, report that the peti¬ 
tion referred to them is an able document, drawn up in the 
most respectful language, and signed by twenty-nine individuals 
who claim to be official members of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church on Lancaster Circuit. 

The petitioners first invite the attention of the General Con¬ 
ference to the Section of the Discipline which states that “no 
slave-holder shall be eligible to any official station in our Church 


2 Journal, 1836, pp. 457, 458. 



EARLY PROCEDURE: 1836 


7 


hereafter, when the laws of the State in which he lives will admit 
of emancipation and permit the liberated slave to enjoy free¬ 
dom,” etc. They then produce an extract of the laws from the 
commonwealth of Virginia, showing their extreme rigor in this 
matter—“that any emancipated slave (with exceptions too rare 
to be looked for in one case out of many) remaining in the 
commonwealth more than twelve months after his or her right 
to freedom shall have arrived, contrary to the provisions of 
this act, shall be sold by the overseers of the poor, in any county 
in which he or she may be found, for the benefit of the literary 
fund.” In view of this “Act,” they claim that they, as official 
members, are protected by the Discipline of the Church, as they 
deem it to be precisely one of the exceptions to the general rule 
provided for in the Discipline; and especially as, under the 
existing laws of the commonwealth, to emancipate their slaves 
would in many cases be an act of cruelty to their slaves them¬ 
selves. 

The matter of complaint by the petitioners is that the con¬ 
struction put upon this rule by the Baltimore Annual Confer¬ 
ence in certain acts, respecting individuals connected with this 
section of the work, is subversive of their rights and oppres¬ 
sive in its bearings; that they require the same submission to 
the rule of persons in that State as of those in sections where 
the legal disability to comply with it does not exist, regardless 
of the exceptions. And they respectfully solicit the interfer¬ 
ence of the General Conference, either to revise the rule, or 
give it such construction as to afford them relief in the premises, 
or, finally, if neither be done, to cause them to be set off to the 
Virginia Conference. 

It is due the Baltimore Conference to say that the cases re¬ 
ferred to, as evidence of their improper application of their rule, 
are stated in terms too vague and indefinite to authorize the 
inference drawn by the petitioners. It is represented that a 
young man applying to be received into the itinerancy is pre¬ 
vented by application of this rule—that it is in vain for him to 
urge upon a majority of the Conference the impracticability of 
his complying with the rule, in consequence of the laws under 
which he lives, or any other consideration in favor of his being 
received; because he will not comply with the rule he must be 
rejected. The same, it is assumed by the petitioners, is done 
with respect to those who apply for ordination. And it is in¬ 
ferred by them that, if the Conference act consistently, Stewards 
and Leaders may be expected soon to be called upon to comply 
with the rule or forfeit their official standing in the Church. 

Your Committee view this subject in a very different light. 
In admitting a preacher to travel, or electing one to orders, a 
Conference must have the right to act freely; and, in cases which 
are not successful, it is wholly an assumption on the part of 


Reception and 
ordination at 
Annual 
Conference 


8 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Location for 
Unacceptability 


the applicants or their friends to say what particular considera¬ 
tions dictated the vote, unless such considerations be distinctly 
avowed by a majority of the Conference. And it is known to 
all conversant with the transactions of an Annual Confer¬ 
ence that no person applying to be received or ordained ever 
enters as a party before the Conference, pleading his own cause 
and hearing and answering the objections which may be urged 
against his application. Any act of a Conference, then, in these 
cases cannot be justly urged as evidence that the Conference 
denies the party concerned the benefit of the special provision 
in the rule. A Conference, or other deliberative bodies, possesses, 
and in the nature of the case must possess, the right to determine 
its own course and vote freely in all such individual cases. 
Your Committee, therefore, cannot see that the privileges claimed 
by the petitioners have been contravened by an act of the Balti¬ 
more Conference. 

Having said this much respecting the alleged grounds of 
grievance, your Committee agree in the opinion that the excep¬ 
tions to the general rule in the Discipline, referred to by the 
petitioners, clearly apply to official members of the Church in 
Virginia, according the laws of the commonwealth, and do 
therefore protect them against a forfeiture of their official stand¬ 
ing on account of said rule. 

In addition to the petition of the official members of Lan¬ 
caster Circuit, a resolution of a Quarterly Conference of West¬ 
moreland Circuit has been referred to your Committee, by which 
it appears that the members of said Conference concurred in 
said petition. 

Should the General Conference agree in the opinions stated 
by the Committee in the report, it is respectfully recommended 
that after adopting it they cause a copy to be forwarded to the 
official members in each of the above-named Circuits. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

David Young, Chairman. 3 

The Judiciary Committee further presented a report re¬ 
garding the location of three members of Annual Confer¬ 
ences for unacceptability—the same being the first instance 
of legislation on a subject so vital. 4 This report as 

3 Journal, 1836, pp. 465-467. 

4 As early as 1820 the “Committee on Rights and Privileges ,, had been 
“instructed to inquire into the constitutionality of the location of travel¬ 
ing ministers without their consent, by an Annual Conference,” but had 
been “discharged from the consideration of the question.” {Journal, 1820, 
p. 189.) Nor was there subsequent action on the subject until the adop¬ 
tion of this present report and the insertion of the provision ir the Disci¬ 
pline of 1836. (Emory, pp. 185, 186; Sherman, p. 191.) 



EARLY PROCEDURE: 1836 


9 


amended—though the Journal of 1836 does not indicate in 
what respect—was adopted, and was as follows: 

The Judiciary Committee to whom were referred the com¬ 
munications of W. Heath, S. Helms, and S. Julien (the first 
of the Missouri Annual Conference, the second of the Kentucky, 
and the last of the Indiana Conference), complaining of in¬ 
justice done them by their several Conferences in locating them 
without their consent, report that they have examined these com¬ 
munications in connection with the Discipline of the Church, 
and have come to the following conclusions, viz.: 

1. That the Discipline does not prohibit an Annual Confer¬ 
ence from locating one of its members without his consent. 

2. That there is no provision in the Discipline authorizing 
a person so located to appeal to the General Conference, nor 
for any process by which to conduct an appeal in such a case; 
and that the brethren concerned have, therefore, no legal ground 
to claim a privilege for which the Discipline, under whose 
regulations they entered the itinerant field, has made no 
provision. 

3. Your Committee believe, moreover, that when it is rendered 
evident to the satisfaction of an Annual Conference that one of 
its members habitually neglects those duties which he engages 
on entering the itinerancy to perform, while in the estimation 
of the Conference he is able to perform them, or otherwise con¬ 
ducts himself in a manner which, though not absolutely criminal 
in itself, nevertheless renders him unacceptable to the people and 
destroys his usefulness among them, he ought to be located, and 
that provision ought to be made in the Discipline for that pur¬ 
pose. They therefore recommend the adoption of the follow¬ 
ing, to be inserted as a fourth question and its answer im¬ 
mediately after the answer to the third question of the eighteenth 
Section of Chapter One of the Discipline, on fifty-fourth page: 

Question 4. What shall be done with a member of an Annual 
Conference who conducts himself in a manner which renders 
him unacceptable to the people as a traveling preacher? 

Answer. When any member of an Annual Conference shall 
be charged with having so conducted himself as to render him 
unacceptable to the people as a traveling preacher, it shall be the 
duty of the Conference to which he belongs to investigate the 
case, and if it appear that the complaint is well founded, and 
he does not give the Conference satisfaction that he will amend 
or voluntarily retire, they may locate him without his consent, 
provided that he shall be at liberty to defend himself before 
the Conference in person or by his representative; and, if he be 
located in his absence without having been previously notified 
of an intention then to proceed against him, he may apply to the 


Report ( 
location 
without 


10 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Comment of 
Nathan Bangs 


Conference at its next session, to be heard in his defense, in 
which case they shall reconsider the matter for that purpose. 

D. Young, Chairman . 5 

The comment of Nathan Bangs upon this last report, as 
contained in his subsequent History, is especially pertinent 
at this point. As the author of the motion for the appoint¬ 
ment of the Judiciary Committee of 1836 and an active 
participant in the adoption of its recommendations, his 
interpretation of this last action carries particular weight. 
He says: 

There was one alteration made in the Discipline at this Con¬ 
ference which went to affect the administration very materially, 
as it lodged in an Annual Conference a tremendous power 
over its members for good or evil, according to the manner in 
which it might be exercised. 

For several successive General Conferences the question had 
been mooted whether an Annual Conference had legitimate au¬ 
thority to locate one of its members without his consent, and 
the predominant opinion seemed to be that no such power 
existed. The question came up for consideration at this time, 
and a rule was finally passed giving to an Annual Conference 
the power to locate one of its members who has rendered him¬ 
self “unacceptable as a traveling preacher” in their judgment, 
allowing him, however, the privilege of an appeal to the next 
General Conference. 

This rule is founded on the presumption that whenever a mem¬ 
ber of an Annual Conference fails to fulfill the obligations of 
his trust, and which were the conditions on which he entered the 
fraternity, he forfeits his privileges and all the immunities of 
his official rank, and hence the Conference has the right of dis¬ 
missing him from their employment as an unfaithful servant. 
It is allowed, however, that this power ought to be exercised with 
great caution and moderation, lest it degenerate into tyranny 
and oppression. 6 

The three thoughtful reports of the Judiciary Committee 
of 1836, as given in the preceding pages, show that its ap¬ 
pointment, on motion of Nathan Bangs, was a long step to¬ 
ward the present practice; its originator had the prophetic 
vision. Yet there is no record in the Journals of the Gen¬ 
eral Conferences immediately following, or until the General 

6 Journal, 1836, pp. 492, 493. 

6 Bangs’ History of the Methodist Episcopal Church , Volume IV, p. 241. 



EARLY PROCEDURE: 1836 


11 


Conference of 1876, of the appointment of another Judi¬ 
ciary Committee—although at the General Conferences of 
1848 and 1860 a Special Committee was twice created which 
was designated as a “Committee on Law Questions,” and 
which presented reports that will be later quoted. 


Ill 


Appeals 
of 1840 


EARLY JUDICIAL PROCEDURE 
1840-1856 

I N the practice of the five General Conferences of this 
period the student of our legislation will find a rever¬ 
sion in many respects to the former processes. At the 
same time there were advanced measures enacted which 
must not he overlooked. In 1848, for illustration, the Com¬ 
mittee on Law Questions considered the proposition of the 
Bishops for a “delegated Annual Conference,” as also the 
resolution making the Annual Conferences “judges of the 
constitutionality of the laws passed by the General Confer¬ 
ence,” and counseled delay. Or, in 1852, the Select Com¬ 
mittee of five presented a report on the matter of a “Con¬ 
ference of Appeals,” which was especially able. Or, in 
1856, the Committee on Trials and Appeals considered por¬ 
tions of the Bishops’ Address having reference to the trial 
of traveling ministers and the laws of evidence, and re¬ 
turned reports which are operative till this day. 

The actions of these five General Conferences were in out¬ 
line the following: 

1. Appeals 

At these successive sessions all appeals were heard by 
the General Conferences themselves, with the previous refer¬ 
ence of a few particular cases to different Committees. The 
instances of appeal and their disposal were as follows: 

(1) At the General Conference of 1840 nine appeals were 
received in protest against the decisions of various Annual Con¬ 
ferences, and of these six were heard and decided by the General 
Conference itself. 

Three other cases were referred to Select Committees, which 
duly presented their reports. One of these cases was not taken 
up, and was not heard till the General Conference of 1844. In 
another case there were found “no just grounds for an appeal.” 
The other report, which was adopted, gave judgment on the 
records of the Tennessee Conference as to “any misrule or mal- 

12 


EARLY PROCEDURE: 1840-1856 


13 


administration in the trial and expulsion” of a certain local 
preacher. 

In one other case the Committee on Itinerancy reported, and 
the General Conference acted, on a memorial “complaining of 
sundry irregularities in the doings of several traveling preachers 
in the Illinois Conference.” 

(2) At the session of 1844 five appeals from the decisions of 
different Annual Conferences were heard by the General Con¬ 
ference itself. One of these had been made to the General 
Conference of 1840, but had not then been considered. 

This total does not include the memorable instances of the 
Rev. F. A. Harding, of the Baltimore Conference, and of Bishop 
J. 0. Andrew, on the matter of slaveholding. These cases were 
discussed at great length in the open Conference, as shown by 
the stenographic reports which are printed in the Appendix of 
the Journal; and formal action was taken on each case by a 
yea and nay vote. 

(3) At the General Conference of 1848 six cases of appeal 
from the decisions of certain Annual Conferences were heard 
and decided by the Conference itself. Of this total two appeals 
were not entertained. Another instance was referred back to the 
Annual Conference for a new trial, while a fuller report on the 
principles to be followed in that future investigation was made 
by the Committee on Law Questions. 1 

In an effort to secure a better method for the hearing of ap¬ 
peals, to the new “Committee on Law Questions” were referred 
two propositions for a change in procedure: (a) The recom¬ 
mendation of the Bishops that there should be “a delegated 
Annual Conference, to consist of one delegate from each An¬ 
nual Conference, to receive and try appeals from the members 
of the Annual Conferences”; and (b) the appointment of a 
“Court of Appeals,” to sit “during the regular sessions of the 
General Conference,” with “full authority to hear, try, and 
finally adjudicate all appeals from the decision of any Annual 
Conference, and which may be referred to them by the General 
Conference.” On these two propositions the report of the Com¬ 
mittee on Law Questions was adopted, that such vital changes 
should be “subjects of consideration” for the ensuing four years, 
with possible action thereupon in 1852. 2 

(4) At the session of 1852 seven appeals from the decisions 
of different Annual Conferences were heard by the General Con¬ 
ference itself, and varying decisions were reached. Considera¬ 
tion was also given, through a Select Committee, to the sub¬ 
ject of a “Conference of Appeals,” and their report is elsewhere 
quoted. 3 

x See pp. 16-18. 2 See Report, p. 16. 

8 See Introduction, p. xvii. 


Appeals 
of 1844 


Aopeala 
of 1848 


Appeals 
of 1852 



14 BEPOBTS OP THE JUDICIAEY COMMITTEE 


Appeals 
of 1856 


1848 


(5) At the General Conference of 1856 eight appeals from 
the findings of various Annual Conferences were considered and 
decided by the full General Conference. These included two 
instances considered by the Committee on Itinerancy, one of 
them being the continuation of an appeal made in 1852. 

A portion of the Episcopal Address relating to “a Delegated 
Annual or Biennial Conference of Appeals” was referred to a 
Select Committee on Trials and Appeals. Their report, as 
offered and adopted, is later cited. 4 

This completes the review of appeals from the beginning 
till the General Conference of 1856 inclusive. From the 
year 1820, when the provision had been adopted for a hear¬ 
ing before the General Conference, the order of procedure 
had been unchanged. In the successive quadrennial issues 
of the Discipline the paragraphs describing the method of 
appeal to the General Conference are verbally identical. 5 
The appellant or his representative was given the oppor¬ 
tunity of stating the grounds of his appeal; the representa¬ 
tives of the Annual Conference concerned were “permitted 
to respond in presence of the appellant”; the latter was to 
have “the privilege of replying”; and, after his withdrawal 
from the session, the General Conference was to make its 
decision on the appeal. From this method there seems to 
have been no divergence. 

But an alternative method of procedure was now to be 
inserted in the Discipline of 1856, by action of the General 
Conference, which was radically different from the one 
hitherto followed; and this important change will be noticed 
in the following Section. 

2. Hew Legislation 

At the General Conferences of 1840 and 1844 no Special 
Committees made report on legislation which should here be 
noted. In 1848, upon the request of the Bishops that the 
General Conference should “consider and decide” certain 
designated “questions of law,” the matter was referred to a 
4 See p. 19. 

6 Discipline , 1820, p. 64; 1824, p. 64; 1828, pp. 63, 64; 1832, pp. 65, 66; 
1836, p. 65; 1840, p. 68; 1844, p. 70; 1848, pp. 87, 88; 1852, pp. 94, 95. 
The Paragraph in the Discipline of 1856 is also identical, with the excep¬ 
tion that the words “or Committee” are added, giving either the General 
Conference or the Committee the right of decision.— Discipline, 1856, p. 94. 



EARLY PROCEDURE: 1840-1856 


15 


Select Committee of twelve . 6 The first report of this “Com¬ 
mittee on Law Questions ” 7 was offered on June 1 , 1848, the 
closing day of the session. Three of its items were amended, 
two were laid on the table, and three were adopted as read. 
The amended report as adopted was as follows: 

The Committee on Questions of Law have carefully considered 
the interrogatories propounded by the Bishops to the Confer¬ 
ence, and by the Conference referred to said Committee, and they 
present their answer in the following resolutions, which are re¬ 
spectfully submitted, namely: 

1. Resolved, That a Presiding Elder has not a right to em¬ 
ploy a local preacher without a recommendation from a Quar¬ 
terly Conference. 

2 . Resolved, That when an Annual Conference decides that a 
preacher having charge has expelled a member contrary to 
Discipline, the decision restores the member so expelled. 

3. [Laid on the table.] 

4. Resolved, That when a member receives a certificate of 
membership from a preacher having charge of a circuit or sta¬ 
tion, he is responsible for his moral conduct (from the date of 
his certificate until he joins) to the Society receiving him upon 
that certificate. 

5. [Laid on the table.] 

6 . Resolved, That questions relating to the admissibility of 
testimony are questions of law. 

7. Resolved, That when a preacher, who differs in judgment 
from the majority of the Society or the Select Number concern¬ 
ing the guilt or innocence of an accused person, carries up the 
trial to the Quarterly Conference, it is an application for a new 
trial. 

8 . Resolved, That in no case of an appeal can new evidence 
be admitted. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

P. P. Sandfokd, Chairman. 8 

Pittsburgh, May 17, 1848. 

6 Journal, 1848, pp. 18, 19, 21, 23. 

7 From this point on till 1876, when the Judiciary Committee (in 1880 
becoming the Committee on Judiciary) as such began, we only trace such 
legislation as came through the operation of Committees analogous to the 
present Committee on Judiciary. But we do not overlook the fact that 
through the reports of different Standing or Special Committees many 
changes in the Discipline were also made. 

s Journal, 1848, pp. 125-127. The whole report is inserted in the official 
record, though items 3 and 5 were laid on the table, and the amendment 
of the second item is uncertain, The report 9 s finally adopted seems to 
have beeo as given above. 


Report on 
questions of law 



1C REPORTS OP’ THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Report on 
Delegated 
Annual 

Conference, etc. 


Report on 
law questions 


APPENDIX 

The Committee on Law Questions have also considered the 
following paper referred to them, namely: 

“Resolved, That the Committee on Questions of Law be in¬ 
structed to inquire whether an Annual Conference, by virtue 
of its original jurisdiction, has the right, when one of its mem¬ 
bers ‘is under report of being guilty of some crime expressly 
forbidden in the word of God/ to adopt any measure for the 
investigation of the matters contained in such report in the 
intervals of its annual sessions, otherwise than in accordance 
with the provisions contained in answer to Question first. Chap¬ 
ter first, Section nineteenth, page 67, and report thereon.” 

Your Committee beg leave to report a negative answer to 
the above interrogatory. 

Respectfully submitted, 

P. P. Sandford, Chairman . 9 

Pittsburgh, May 17, 1848. 

A further report of the Committee on Law Questions was 
offered on the closing day of the session, and the third item 
was laid on the table. With this exception, the report was 
adopted as read, and was as follows: 

The Committee on Law Questions have had under considera¬ 
tion the proposition of the Bishops respecting a delegated An¬ 
nual Conference; the plan of a Connectional Conference and 
the explanatory letter of Dr. Luckey accompanying it; the 
proposition so to alter the Section of the Discipline relating to 
the General Conference as to authorize the appointment of a 
Committee of that body to sit as a Court of Appeals during 
the sessions of the General Conference from time to time; and 
also the resolution which proposes to make the Annual Confer¬ 
ences judges of the constitutionality of the laws passed by the 
General Conference; and after bestowing upon each of the 
above-mentioned subjects all the deliberation so justly due to 
their intrinsic importance, no less than to the eminence of the 
sources whence they have respectively originated, your Com¬ 
mittee think that changes so vital should not be made at this 
juncture. Better that they should be subjects of consideration 
by the whole Connection for the next four years, and subjects of 
action, if need be, of the next session of this body. 

Your Committee beg leave further to report answers to several 
questions referred to them. 

First, in relation to the trial of a preacher under certain cir¬ 
cumstances : 

9 Journal, 1848, p. 127. This Appendix was “read and laid on the table.” 
But it is here inserted for the important conclusion it contains. 



EARLY PROCEDURE: 1840-1856 


17 


1. Resolved, That an Annual Conference has a right, when 
charges are preferred against one of their number, and the case 
cannot be tried during their session for want of testimony, to 
refer it to the Presiding Elder who may have charge of him, 
under the rule for the trial of immoral ministers in the interval 
of an Annual Conference. 

Second, In relation to superannuated preachers: 

1. Resolved, That a superannuated preacher living out of the 
bounds of his own Conference is not a member of the Quarterly 
Conference where he resides. 

2. Resolved, That such minister has no voice in the Society 
where he lives. 

3. Resolved, That he has a right (as all other Methodist 
preachers) in class meetings. 

4. Resolved, That he is under the jurisdiction of the Presiding 
Elder, so far as is provided in the Discipline, pages 24 and 68. 

Third, In relation to a certain item of expense : [Laid on the 
table.] 

Fourth, In relation to the case of E. Sprague: 

They return the questions propounded by the delegates of the 
Troy Conference, with their answers subjoined. 

Ques. 1 . In- what relation to the Troy Conference did the 
above act of the General Conference place Rev. E. Sprague? 
Does he still remain suspended from the ministry or not? 

Ans. His relation to the Troy Conference is that of an accused 
member. 

Ques. 2. May the Troy Conference suffer the said E. Sprague 
to withdraw from the Church should he request it, before the 
trial takes place, as required by the action of this body ? 

Ans. They may. 

Ques. 3. When the trial takes place, is the Troy Conference 
at liberty to use any part of the testimony read before this 
body as documentary evidence in the case ? 

Ans. Yes, if it has been taken according to the Discipline. 

Ques. 4. If living witnesses are present at the seat of the 
Conference, but refuse to give evidence in open Conference, is 
the Conference at liberty in such a case to appoint a Committee 
to take such testimony in the presence of the accused out of the 
Conference; and, if so taken, must the testimony be written down 
by the Secretary of the Conference? 

Ans. The Conference has a right to appoint a Commission to 
take testimony when the witnesses cannot be brought before the 
Conference, the opposite party being notified to appear before 
such Commission, and having the right to cross examine the 
witnesses. In such case the testimony is to be taken by a Secre¬ 
tary appointed by the Commission, and when reported to Confer¬ 
ence it must be filed and carefully preserved by the Secretary of 
that body. 


Trial of 
preacher 


Superannuated 

preacher 


Report on Troy 

Conference 

Trial 


18 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


1852 


1856 


Report on trial 
of ministers 


Ques. 5. Must all testimony taken before the Conference be 
spread on the Journal, or may it be written down and kept in a 
form separate from the Journal? 

Ans. Documentary testimony need not be spread upon the 
Journal, but should be filed and preserved by the Secretary. 

Your Committee do not deem it necessary to sustain their 
views by elaborate argumentation; and presuming that, at this 
late hour of the session, the more brief their report the more 
acceptable, they respectfully submit it. 

P. P. Sandford, Chairman. 10 

Pittsburgh, May 31, 1848. 

A Select Committee of five was appointed at the General 
Conference of 1852, to consider the matter of a “Confer¬ 
ence of Appeals,” which had been deferred by the Confer¬ 
ence of 1848 for consideration during the quadrennium. 
The report of this Committee was offered on May 31, 1852, 
and was laid on the table. Yet its showing of the need of 
such an appellate court and its recommendation as to the 
membership of this “Conference of Appeals” make it a most 
valuable document ; and elsewhere in these pages it is quoted 
in full. 11 

At the General Conference of 1856 a “Committee on 
Trials and Appeals” was appointed, to which was referred 
so much of the Episcopal Address as had relation to “a 
Court of Trials and Appeals.” On June 3 this Committee 
presented the following three reports, which were adopted: 

The Committee on Trials and Appeals beg leave to report that 
they have carefully considered that part of the Bishops’ Ad¬ 
dress which relates to the trial of accused traveling ministers, 
and in accordance with their suggestion they recommend that 
the Discipline be so altered (Part I, Chapter ix, Sec. 2, page 
94, immediately preceding the words “provided nevertheless,” 
etc.,) as to read: 

“But should the Conference having jurisdiction in any of the 
foregoing cases judge it expedient to try the accused by a Select 
Number, it may appoint not less than nine nor more than fifteen 
of its members for that purpose, who, in the presence of a Bishop 
or a Chairman which the President of the Conference shall ap¬ 
point, and one or more of the Secretaries of the Conference, 
shall have full power to consider and determine the case ac¬ 
cording to the rules which govern Annual Conferences in sucb 

10 Journal, 1848, pp. 128, 129. 

11 gee Introduction, p, xvji, 



EARLY PROCEDURE: 1840-1856 


19 


proceedings, and they shall make a faithful report of all their 
doings to the Secretary of the Conference in writing, and de¬ 
liver up to him the bill of charges, the evidence taken, and 
the decision rendered, with all other documents brought into 
the trial." 12 

The Committee have also considered that part of the Bishops’ 
Address which relates to the laws of evidence, and beg leave to 
report that it is inexpedient to incorporate into the Discipline 
anything further upon this subject. The laws of evidence in 
civil and criminal jurisprudence are complicated, and often in¬ 
appropriate to our circumstances. Having no authority to com¬ 
pel the attendance and testimony of witnesses, we are some¬ 
times obliged to rely chiefly on evidence that would not be ad¬ 
mitted in the jurisprudence of the State. These facts, taken in 
connection with the increasing facilities among us for a better 
understanding of the subject, fully justify the Committee, they 
think, in the conclusion at which they have arrived. 13 

That part of the Bishops’ Address which relates to a Confer¬ 
ence of Appeals has given your Committee great embarrassment. 
The plans suggested, together with several others had under 
consideration at the General Conference of 1852, have been care¬ 
fully examined. To these have been added a number more, 
containing elements of great excellence. But, after careful 
consideration of the whole subject, your Committee entertain 
serious doubts of the propriety of introducing a new and distinct 
tribunal into our economy. Arrange it as we may, it will in¬ 
volve many inconveniences and much expense, besides being 
liable to various misconstructions. Our present system is simple 
and unobtrusive. Without a parade of forms and high-sound¬ 
ing titles it secures the rights of all our members in an eminent 
degree, while at the same time it protects the Church against the 
influence of unworthy members. 

Your Committee, therefore, beg leave to report that in their 
judgment it is inexpedient for this General Conference to pro¬ 
vide for a Delegated Annual or Biennial Conference of Appeals, 
and to relieve the difficulties which call loudest for some change 
they recommend that the following Paragraph be appended to 
Section 2 of Part 1 of the Discipline, entitled, “Of the General 
Conference," namely: 

“The General Conference may try appeals from members of 
Annual Conferences who may have been censured, suspended, 
expelled, or located without their consent by a Committee em¬ 
bracing not less than fifteen of its members, nor more than one 
member from each delegation, who, in the presence of a Bishop 
presiding, and one or more of the Secretaries of the Conference 

Journal, 1856, p. 172. 

11 Ibid. 


Report on 
laws of evidence 


Report on 
Conference of 
Appeals 



20 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


keeping a faithful record of all the proceedings had, shall have 
full power to hear and determine the case, subject to the rules 
and regulations which govern the said Conference in such pro¬ 
ceedings; and the records made and the papers submitted in 
such trials shall be presented to the Conference, and shall be 
filed and preserved with the papers of that body/’ 14 


14 Journal, 1856, p. 173. 



IV 


EARLY JUDICIAL PROCEDURE 
1860-1872 

T HE General Conference of 1860 saw the first applica¬ 
tion of the new law for the hearing of appeals, which 
differed radically from the rule before prevailing. In 
the Discipline of 1856 the familiar regulation had been con¬ 
tinued, giving the appellant the right of personal hearing 
before the General Conference. But, as an alternative, there 
had also been inserted the provision adopted by the Confer¬ 
ence of 1856 which made possible the reference of appeals 
to a smaller Committee from the membership of the Gen¬ 
eral Conference. This new provision was as follows: 

The General Conference may try appeals from members of 
Annual Conferences who may have been censured, suspended, 
expelled, or located without their consent, by a Committee em¬ 
bracing not less than fifteen of its members, nor more than one 
member from each delegation, who, in the presence of a Bishop 
presiding, and one or more of the Secretaries of the Conference 
keeping a faithful record of all the proceedings had, shall have 
full power to hear and determine the case, subject to the rules 
and regulations which govern the said Conference in such pro¬ 
ceedings ; and the records made and the papers submitted in such 
trials shall be presented to the Conference and be filed and 
preserved with the papers of that body. 1 

It will be observed that this new regulation proposed two 
fundamental departures from the old rule—the reference of 
an appeal to a smaller Committee than the General Confer¬ 
ence itself, and the clothing of that Committee with the 
power of final decision upon the merits of such appeal. 

1. Appeals 

In the application of this new law by the General Confer¬ 
ences of 1860 to 1872 inclusive, the following were the 
quadrennial variations: 

(1) The General Conference of 1860, having appointed a 
Committee to consider the whole subject of a “Court of Ap- 

1 Journal of 1856, p. 173; Discipline of 1856, p. 35. 

21 


New law 
for appeals 



22 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Appeals 
of 1860 


Appeals 
of 1864 


Appeals 
of 1868 


peals,” on May 8 adopted the amended report of this Committee. 
By this action, the “Committee on Appeals” was made a Stand¬ 
ing Committee; it was to “consist of one member from each 
delegation, to be nominated by their respective delegations”; 
and, under various prescribed rules, it was to hear appeals and 
make its decisions. 2 

This Committee on Appeals, so operating for the first time, 
reported to the General Conference their findings on fifteen 
appeals submitted to them. Of these, (a) four cases were re¬ 
manded for a new trial; (b) in two, the action of the Annual 
Conferences was affirmed: (c) in two instances the actions of 
the Annual Conferences were reversed; (d) two appeals were not 
admitted; (e) two were withdrawn; (f) in one case the Com¬ 
mittee reported that it had no jurisdiction; (g) one was re¬ 
manded for a new trial, if there had been no notice of appeal or 
desire expressed therefor; and (h) one case was referred back 
for a new trial by the General Conference itself. One other case 
was tried by a Committee of fifteen, and the action of the 
Annual Conference was reversed. 

Following this General Conference, the Discipline of 1860 
inserted as in 1856 (a) the old rule permitting appeal to the 
General Conference itself, and also (b) the new law of 1856, 
providing for a Committee on Appeals. 3 

(2) The General Conference of 1864 at its opening session 
reaffirmed the action of 1860 as to the membership and regula¬ 
tions of the Committee on Appeals; and, at the afternoon ses¬ 
sion, the Committee as nominated was duly confirmed, con¬ 
sisting of one member from each Annual Conference delegation. 
Later, the “quorum to transact business” was fixed at twenty- 
one. 

The Committee subsequently reported their decisions in the 
cases of ten appeals referred to them. Of these, (a) four ap¬ 
peals for various assigned reasons were not admitted; (b) the 
decisions of three Annual Conferences were affirmed; (c) the 
decision of one Annual Conference was reversed; (d) one case 
was remanded for a new trial; and (e) one memorial was re¬ 
turned, “as not properly an appeal case.” 

Following the General Conference of 1864, the forthcoming 
Discipline transferred the newer paragraph of 1856 from the 
Section on the “General Conference” to that on “Appeals of 
Traveling Ministers or Preachers”; and to this it added the 
earlier provision permitting the appellant to appear before the 
General Conference itself with his defense. 4 

(3) In 1868 the Committee on Appeals again consisted of 

5 Journal , 1860, pp. 93, 94. 

8 Discipline , 1860, pp. 45, 109, 110. 

4 Discipline , 1864, pp. 125-127. 



EARLY PROCEDURE: 1800-1872 


23 


one member from each Annual Conference delegation. The 
rules governing the operation of the Committee in 1864 were, 
however, changed, a resolution “on behalf of the Committee” 
having been presented by Bishop Clark and having been adopted. 
By the amended rules the Committee was divided alphabetically 
into two sections, which were to alternate in the hearing of 
appeals; the quorum for trial was reduced from twenty-one to 
fifteen; and a fourth Assistant Secretary was to be appointed by 
the General Conference, to serve as Secretary of the Committee^ 

Twelve cases of appeal were heard by the Committee, with 
the following result: (a) In five instances the decisions of the 
Annual Conferences were reversed; (b) the findings of four 
Annual Conferences were affirmed; (c) two cases were remanded 
for a new trial; and (d) in one instance the Committee decided 
that it had no jurisdiction. 

The new Discipline of 1868, following the session of the Gen¬ 
eral Conference, repeated without change of phraseology the 
double provision of the Discipline of 1864. 5 6 

(4) At the General Conference of 1872 the Committee on 
Appeals was again composed of one representative from each 
Annual Conference delegation. A change in the rules, however, 
was made, repealing the division of the Committee into two 
sections, and providing that the quorum of the Committee should 
not be “less than fifteen members.” 7 

Twelve appeals were referred to the Committee, with the 
following result: (a) Five cases were remanded for a new trial; 
(b) in three instances the decisions of the Annual Conferences 
were affirmed; (c) in two cases the decisions of the Annual Con¬ 
ferences were reversed; (d) in one the case was laid over; and 
(e) in one case no action is recorded. 

It is noticeable that at this session the matter of “Courts of 
Appeal,” to sit in the interval of the General Conference, was 
considered, as in 1848, 1852, 1856, and 1860. Also, as in 1860, 
the subject was referred to the Committee on Revisals, which in 
both instances made no recommendation on the subject. 8 

By action of the Conference of 1872 the entire law on min¬ 
isterial appeals—existing from the beginning—was displaced by 
new legislation. This revised action provided for the hearing of 
appeals by a “Judicial Conference,” the General Conference 
being empowered to afterward “review the decisions of ques¬ 
tions of law contained in the records and documents transmitted 
to it from the Judicial Conferences.” 9 


5 Journal, 1868, pp. 153, 154. 

6 Discipline, 1868, pp. 133-135. 

7 Journal, 1872, p. 245. 

8 Journal, 1860, p. 65; Journal, 1872, p. 181. 

9 Journal, 1872, p. 405; Discipline, 1872, Paragraphs 352-361. 


Appeals 
of 1872 



24 BEPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


I860 


Report on 

miscellaneous 

questions 


Report on 

miscellaneous 

questions 


This concludes the review of the methods followed in the 
hearing of appeals by the General Conferences of 1860 to 
1872 inclusive. The Committee quadrennially appointed 
was less in number than the General Conference itself, and 
in this respect had its analogy in the present Select Number 
designated for trials at an Annual Conference. But the 
Committee of the General Conference was given “full power 
to hear and determine” the cases presented, and in this re¬ 
spect was unlike the Select Number, from whose decision an 
appeal may be had on points of law to the Judicial Confer¬ 
ence. The method, in other words, was still in transition. 

2. New Legislation 

At the General Conference of 1860 a “Committee on Law 
Questions” was appointed, as in 1848, consisting of five 
members, and was directed to “consider and report upon 
such questions of law” as should be referred to them. On 
May 28, 1860, the Committee submitted the following part 
of Report No. Ill, which was adopted: 

Question. In case a Quartely Conference recommend the re¬ 
newal of the license of an Exhorter, is the Presiding Elder under 
obligation to renew the license ? 

Answer. He is. 

Question. Has a Probationer in our Church the right to pre¬ 
fer charges against a member of our Church? 

Answer. He has not. 10 

On June 2, 1860, the Committee presented Reports No. 
I, II, III, and IV, which were adopted, with the indefinite 
postponement of one item in Report No. Ill, as follows: 

No. I 

Your Committee have considered the following questions sub¬ 
mitted by Rev. W. Wilcox, of West Wisconsin Conference, and 
report for your consideration the answers which follow them: 

“1. If a preacher in charge of any work receive a person into 
the Church contrary to the Discipline, can the Annual Confer¬ 
ence correct the administration, and declare that the person 
having been received contrary to Discipline is therefore not a 
member ?” 

Answer. No. This question was decided by the General 
Conferen ce of 1852, by the adoption of the following resolution: 

10 Journal, 1860, pp. 228, 229. 



EARLY PROCEDURE: 1860-1872 


25 


Resolved, That when an Annual Conference decides that a 
Preacher having charge has received or expelled a member con¬ 
trary to the Discipline the decision does not exclude the mem¬ 
ber so received, but restores the member so expelled. (General 
Conference Journal, page 73.) 

“2. If a motion is made in an Annual or Quarterly Confer¬ 
ence, which, if passed, would be a positive violation of Disci¬ 
pline, should the President put the motion and allow the Disci¬ 
pline to be set aside, or what should he do ?” 

Answer. He should refuse to put the motion. 

“The President of an Annual or a Quarterly Meeting Con¬ 
ference has the right to decline putting the question on a mo¬ 
tion, resolution, or report when in his judgment such motion, 
resolution, or report does not relate to the proper business of 
the Conference.” (General Conference Journal, 1840, p. 121.) 

“3. When a Bishop presiding in an Annual Conference de¬ 
cides a question of law by request of the Conference, if a mo¬ 
tion is made which would reverse the decision of the Bishop, 
under the plea that the Conference has the right to apply the 
law in the case, should the motion be put, and the Conference 
be allowed to set aside the law under the pretense of applying 
it?” 

Answer . Ho. When a question of law has been decided by a 
Bishop in an Annual Conference, that decision cannot be re¬ 
versed or set aside except by the action of the ensuing General 
Conference, to which body an appeal may be taken by the Annual 
Conference or by any member thereof. 

J. Drummond, Chairman. 11 

No. II 

1 . The question referred to your Committee in the memorial 
of R. Curran is substantially this: Can a Traveling Preacher, 
during the interval of the Annual Conference of which he is a 
member, be suspended for refusing to attend to the work assigned 
him? 

Answer. It is the duty of a Presiding Elder “to take charge 
of all the Elders and Deacons in his District,” and to “take 
care that every part of our Discipline be enforced.” Now our 
Discipline provides (Part i. Chapter iv, Sections iii and iv, 
pages 49, 50, and 51) that no Elder or Deacon “who ceases to 
travel without the consent of the Annual Conference, certified 
under the hand of the President of the Conference, except in 
case of sickness, debility, or other unavoidable circumstances, 
shall on any account exercise the peculiar functions of his office, 
or even be allowed to preach among us.” Hence, any Elder or 
Deacon who refuses to go to the work assigned him (“except in 


Report on 
suspension of 
preacher 


» Journal , 1860, p. 297. 



26 BEPOBTS OP THE JUDICIAEY COMMITTEE 


Report on 

expelled 

member 


Report on 

miscellaneous 

questions 


cases of sickness,” etc.) may be suspended “in the interval of the 
Annual Conference”; but the “final determination in all such 
cases is with” the Conference. 

2 . Your Committee also report for your consideration an¬ 
swers to the following questions: 

“When an appeal is taken by an expelled member to the 
Quarterly Conference, and the Conference remand the case 
back for a new trial, what is the precise relation of the appellant ? 
Is he an accused member, and must the Preacher proceed to try 
him again, or is he restored to his membership in good stand¬ 
ing ?” 

Answer. He is an accused member, and the Preacher should 
proceed to try him again unless the charges are withdrawn. 

3. “When a member is expelled from the Church, and com¬ 
plaint is made against the administrator to his Annual Con¬ 
ference for maladministration, and the Conference decide that 
the person was expelled contrary to Discipline , what is the rela¬ 
tion of the member expelled from the Church ? Does the act of 
the Annual Conference restore the character of the member, 
so that the charges on which he was expelled are so annulled 
that the Preacher may legally give him a letter before said 
charges are disposed of by trial or withdrawn ?” 

Answer. The act of the Annual Conference does not restore 
his character, but simply his membership; and when so re¬ 
stored he is placed in the position which he occupied before he 
was tried, that is, he is an accused member, and hence the 
Preacher is not at liberty to give him a certificate of member¬ 
ship. 12 

No. Ill 

“When a member of an Annual Conference gives notice to the 
Conference that he has withdrawn from the Church or Confer¬ 
ence, and at the same time there be charges ready to be presented 
against him, and he has knowledge of such charges previous 
to his notice of withdrawal, and he has been marked upon the 
Journal of the Annual Conference as withdrawn under charges, 
has such member the right to appeal to the General Conference 
from such record of the Annual Conference?” 

Answer. He has not. 

“When an expelled member has, by neglect or otherwise, for¬ 
feited his right of appeal, may a subsequent Quarterly Confer¬ 
ence, if it desire to do so, grant him the privilege of an appeal ?” 

Answer. Ho. 

“May a person who has not been formally received into full 
connection in the Church but has for a term of years enjoyed all 
the privileges of a member, and is supposed by the Preacher in 


u Journal, 1860, pp. 297, 298. 



EABLY PBOCEDUBE: 1860-1872 


27 


charge and Society to be a member, plead the fact of his non¬ 
reception as a bar to proceedings in case of alleged immorality ?” 

Answer. No. 

“Is a Preacher in charge obliged to receive a properly authenti¬ 
cated certificate of a member when he is aware such reception 
would disturb the peace and quiet of the Church ?” 

Answer. It is the duty of the Preacher to receive all such 
certificates. 

Inasmuch as the extract from the Journal of the North Ohio 
Conference, which was referred to them, contains a decision of 
one of the Bishops, your Committee respectfully ask that it be 
referred to the Committee on Episcopacy. 

J. Drummond, Chairman. 13 

No. IV 

“Is there in the Discipline anything authorizing a Quarterly 
Meeting Conference to remand a case for a new trial ?” 

Answer. When the Preacher in charge differs “in judgment 
from the majority of the Society, or the Select Number, con¬ 
cerning the guilt or innocence of the accused person,” and 
refers the case to the Quarterly Conference, that body has 
“authority to order a new trial.” ( Discipline , p. 99.) And, in 
other cases, the power to remand for what the Conference may 
deem sufficient cause is inherent in that body as an appellate 
court. 

“To whom is a Preacher amenable on a complaint of malad¬ 
ministration ?” 

Answer. To the Annual Conference of which he is a member. 

“Are any additional provisions of Discipline necessary, in 
order to try a charge of maladministration against a Preacher 
which does not involve the moral character of the adminis¬ 
trator ?” 

Answer . No. 

James Drummond, Chairman. 1 * 

3. General Summary 

We have thus noticed, in the previous and the present 
Sections, the following facts in the practice of the General 
Conferences from 1792 to 1872 inclusive: 

(1) Until 1816 no appeal was made to the General Confer¬ 
ence from the findings of any Annual Conference, if there had 
been such verdicts of censure. 

(2) From 1816 to 1836 all appeals were heard by the Gen- 
eral Con ference itself. 

13 Journal, 1860, p. 298. 
u Ibid., p. 301. 


Report on 
new trial 


Report on 
maladministra¬ 
tion 


Appeals 



28 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Legislation 


(3) In 1836 the General Conference appointed a “Judiciary 
Committee,” whose service was confined to that single session 
and included but four reports on appeals from Annual Con¬ 
ference decisions. 

(4) From 1840 to 1860 appeals were continuously heard by 
the General Conference itself, save that in 1840 three cases were 
referred to Select Committees. 

(5) From 1860 to 1872 inclusive there existed a Committee 
on Appeals, which had the power of final decision and was thus 
differentiated from the present Committee on Judiciary. 

(6) Altogether, it is noticeable that the methods followed 
from the General Conference of 1792 to that of 1876 had been 
tentative and anticipatory of another order. But through all 
the period of a century there had been preserved for the indi¬ 
vidual that sacred right of appeal which had been guaranteed 
as early as 1792, and which is “imbedded in the Constitution 
of the General Conference” 15 beyond the possibility of change. 

(7) As for new legislation, this was still accomplished on 
individual motions, or following the reports of various Com¬ 
mittees. Particular Committees appointed upon legislation, and 
clothed with specified authority, were: (a) The Judiciary Com¬ 
mittee, in 1836; (b) the Committee on Law Questions, in 1848; 
(c) the Committee on a “Conference of Appeals,” in 1852; (d) 
the Committee on Trials and Appeals, in 1856; and (e) the 
Committee on Law Questions, in I860. 16 

This brings the student of our denominational methods to 
the practice which began in 1876 and has continued without 
interruption till the present time. The review is abbreviated, 
but it is believed to be exhaustive. 17 

16 A Digest of Methodist Law. Bishop S. M. Merrill, LL.D., p. 237. 

16 For the reports of these Committees, see Sections II, III, and IV. 

17 The Editors have endeavored by the most painstaking search to include 
in the previous four Sections all that has relevancy to appeals and legis¬ 
lation akin to the work of the present Committee on Judiciary. 



V 


JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: DECISIONS OF 1876 

T HE General Conference of 1876, in session at Balti¬ 
more, was now to make a fundamental and permanent 
change in the mode of hearing appeals and of secur¬ 
ing new legislation. Prior to that year, as sufficiently out¬ 
lined in the previous Sections, the methods followed by the 
General Conferences from 1792 to 1872 inclusive had been 
varied and experimental. But now, in 1876, came the ap¬ 
pointment of a “Judiciary Committee,” as a substitute for 
all previous quadrennial practices. With variations as to 
its number and manner of selection, this Committee has 
continued until the present, and is now known as the “Com¬ 
mittee on Judiciary.” Its decisions have covered a wide 
field, and have guided the practices of the Church for nearly 
a half century of its history. 

Duties of the Committee. —Following the appointment of 
this new Judiciary Committee by the General Conference of 
1876, its Chairman asked from the Conference a definition 
of its duties. The record of the Journal is to the effect that, 
“after considerable interchange of views,” action was taken 
upon the subject in the following words: 

Resolved, That the Judiciary Committee be instructed to con¬ 
sider and report their decision on all questions of law coming 
up to us from Judicial Conferences which may be referred to 
that Committee. 1 

Members of the Committee. —As ordered by the General 
Conference of 1876, the Judiciary Committee of twelve mem¬ 
bers was to consist of “one from each General Conference 
District, to be appointed by the delegates of the Districts 
respectively.” 2 On May 3 the Conference confirmed the 


1 Journal, 1876, p. 134. 

2 Ibid., p. 67. 

29 


Permanent 

change 


Judiciary 

Committee 



30 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


appointment of the following Committee, as representing the 
then twelve Districts of the Church: 


Joseph Cummings, 
Erastus 0. Haven, 
Lucius C. Matlack, 
Alexander C. M’Donald, 
Cyrus Brooks, 

Henry C. Benson, 


George G. Reynolds, 
Alfred Wheeler, 
Joseph M. Trimble, 
George B. Jocelyn, 
Richard N. Davies, 
Jacob Rothweiler. 3 


Report 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 

Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


The Committee was afterward organized by the election of 
Joseph Cummings as Chairman and of Alfred Wheeler as 
Secretary. 3 4 

Report of the Committee—The following report was pre¬ 
sented by the new Judiciary Committee, and was duly acted 
upon: 

Report Ho. 1 

ACTION OF JUDICIAL CONFERENCES 

Your Committee have considered the action of Judicial Con¬ 
ferences in the following cases, and find no errors demanding 
action on the part of the General Conference: T. C. Workman, 
H. T. Burge, J. F. Chaffee, William Rice, A. S. Cobb, Peter 
St. Clair, W. H. D. Young. 

In the case of the Judicial Conference held at Chattanooga, 
February 18, 1874, to hear the appeal of Henry Stevens from 
the action of the Tennessee Conference, it appears that only two 
of the triers were in attendance; but, by agreement of all parties 
interested to waive objections and abide the decision of the triers 
present, the appeal was tried, and the decision of the Conference 
reversed. 

In the judgment of your Committee this procedure was un¬ 
authorized by the law in the case, and would therefore be an un¬ 
safe precedent to follow. But inasmuch as the result seems to 
have been generally satisfactory, and justice does not seem to re¬ 
quire further action, we recommend the General Conference to 
let it pass without further notice. 

Presented, May 20. 5 Adopted, May 29. 6 

Three of the preceding cases named in the first paragraph 
of the above report were also referred to the Committee on 
Episcopacy. Without any explanation to be found in the 


3 Journal, 1876, p. 71. 

4 Ibid., p. 89. 

6 Ibid., p. 282. 8 Ibid., p. 335. 



DECISIONS OF 1876 


31 


Journal or the Daily Advocate for 1876, the Judiciary Com¬ 
mittee here reports upon them. 

This one report of the new Judiciary Committee seems 
a small beginning. It was, however, prophetic of the varied 
and exhaustive service which the Committee was to render 
in later General Conferences, and which the wisdom of a 
half century has not improved upon. 


VI 


Change in 
Method of 
Appointment 


COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY: DECISIONS OF 1880 

W ITH the General Conference of 1880, which was 
held at Cincinnati, there came a change in the 
method of appointing the Committee on Judiciary 
—by which name it then began to be known. The Bishops, 
and not the delegates from the General Conference Districts 
as in 1876, were directed to appoint a Committee of thirteen 
members. 1 

Members of the Committee —As subsequently named by 
the Bishops and announced by Bishop Harris on May 7, the 
Committee consisted of the following members: 


District 

Conference 

I. 

P. N. Granger. 


II. 

Cyrus D. Foss. 


III. 

Luke C. Queal. 


IV. 

Samuel S. Dreher 2 3 .... 


V. 

John Lanahan. 


VI. 

Henderson Elliott. 


VII. 

Alvin Hawkins. 


VIII. 

Isaac W. Joyce. 


IX. 

Alpha J. Kynett. 


X. 

J. B. Blakeney. 


XI. 

Jacob S. Bor email. 

...Utah. 

XII. 

John Schlagenhauf.... 


At large. 

George G. Reynolds... 



One of this Committee, G. G. Reynolds, had been a mem¬ 
ber of the Committee of 1876. He was chosen as Chairman 
of the Committee, and L. C. Queal served as Secretary. 

Reports of the Committee. —At later sessions of the Con- 

1 Journal , 1880, p. 84. 

2 But, on May 13 {Journal, p. 222), it is recorded that “Bishop Harris 
named Jacob B. Graw on the Committee on Judiciary, in place of H. W. 
Warren.” This is an intimation that H. W. Warren had been designated 
a member of the Committee on May 7, and not S. S. Dreher, a lay delegate 
from the Philadelphia Conference. 

3 Journal, 1880, pp. 143, 144. 


32 
















DECISIONS OF 1880 


33 


ference the Committee presented the following six reports, 
as found in the succeeding pages of this Section: 

Report No. 1 

ORDINATION OF WOMEN 

In the matter of the appeal of Rev. L. R. Thayer, of the 
New England Conference, in the case of Sister Anna Oliver, the 
Judiciary Committee respectfully report: That it appears from 
the record that Sister Oliver had been recommended to orders 
by a Quarterly Conference, and, upon said recommendation com¬ 
ing before the said Annual Conference, Bishop Andrews, then 
presiding, gave the following decision, to wit: “In my judgment 
the law of the Church does not authorize the ordination of 
women; I, therefore, am not at liberty to submit to the vote 
of the Conference the vote to elect women to orders.” 

Your Committee have come to the conclusion that such ruling 
was in accordance with the Discipline of the Church as it is, and 
with the uniform 4 usage of administration under it. 

The Committee therefore report that said appeal should not 
be sustained. 

On table for printing, May 21. 5 Adopted, May 27. 6 

Report No. 2 

LICENSING WOMEN AS LOCAL PREACHERS 

In the matter of the appeal of Rev. R. Wheatley, of the New 
York Conference, the Judiciary Committee respectfully report 
that it appears from the record certified to us that, at the Pough¬ 
keepsie District Conference, held February 27, 1878, Sister Lent 
was licensed as a local preacher, whereupon Rev. C. Gorse ap¬ 
pealed from the action of said Conference. 

Bishop Andrews, presiding at the New York Annual Confer¬ 
ence, upon the coming on of said appeal, made the following 
decision: 

“In strictness the appeal should have been made from the 
decision of the President of the District Conference, in enter¬ 
taining and putting to vote the motion to grant such license, 
since the Discipline puts upon him the decision of all ques¬ 
tions of law in the District Conference, and provides for appeal 
therefrom. ( Discipline, Paragraph 163, Section 6.) Waiving 
this informality, I give my judgment that the Discipline of the 

4 Following the reading of this report, it is recorded {Journal, 1880, 

p. 353) that “T. H. Herdman moved to amend by striking out ‘uniform’ 
and inserting ‘general,’ which was laid on the table.” 

6 Journal, 1880, p. 298. 

'Ibid., p. 353. 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 



34 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Church does not provide for nor contemplate the licensing of 
women as local preachers, and that therefore the action of said 
Conference, and of its President, was without authority of law.” 

The Committee report that they have come to the conclusion 
that such ruling of the presiding Bishop was in accordance with 
the Discipline of the Church as it is, and with the uniform 
course of administration under it. We therefore report that 
said appeal should not be sustained. 

On table for printing, May 21. 7 Adopted, May 27. 8 

Report No. 3 

WITHDRAWAL IN INTERIM OF CONFERENCE 

In the matter of the appeal of Rev. L. R. Thayer, of the New 
England Conference, the Judiciary Committee respectfully re¬ 
port: 

That it appears that at a session of said Conference the fol¬ 
lowing question of law was propounded: 

“Has a member of a Conference a right to withdraw there¬ 
from, there being no official charges presented against him, in the 
interim of the sessions of the Conference; and, if he withdraw, 
does he cease to be a member of the Conference from the time 
of his withdrawal?” 

The presiding Bishop gave the following answers: 

“1. It is the right of any member of a Conference to give 
notice of withdrawal from the Conference, through the proper 
officer, when there are no charges presented against him. 

“2. But the withdrawal is not complete until the Conference 
with which he was connected takes action upon it.” 

From this decision the present appeal was taken. 

Your Committee report that, in their opinion, the answers 
given above were correct, and that the appeal should not be 
sustained. 

On table for printing, May 21. 9 Adopted, May 28. 10 

Report No. 4 

RIGHT OF EXPELLED MEMBER TO MAKE COMPLAINT 

In the matter of J. W. Ross and M. C. Briggs, in complaint 
against the administration of Bishop E. G. Andrews, presiding 
in the California Annual Conference, held September, 1878: 

As a matter of fact, the complaints of Ross and Briggs are 
substantially the same. But, inasmuch as the record does not 
show what J. W. Ross' law questions were, or what he excepted 

7 Journal, 1880, p. 298. 

8 Ibid., pp. 353, 354. 

9 Ibid., p. 298. 

10 Ibid., p. 380. 



DECISIONS OF 1880 


35 


to, we need pay no attention to his complaint. The following is 
all that appears on the minutes of the California Conference in 
regard to J. W. Ross' case: 

“Exception. —J. W. Ross having presented some questions of 
law, the Bishop declined to answer them, on the ground that 
there was no case pending on which they had any bearing. 
Brother Ross excepting to the ruling.” 

The record itself should show the questions and their answer 
or failure to answer, and the exception. We are not authorized 
to go outside, to find errors in the rulings of the Bishop. 

Whatever there may be in the complaint of Ross, as presented 
to the General Conference, of any pertinency, is embraced in the 
matter of the complaint of M. C. Briggs. The case is as follows: 

A. Henley, an expelled member of the Church, presented com¬ 
plaint before the Annual Conference against A. J. Nelson, Pre¬ 
siding Elder, and M. C. Briggs, pastor, for alleged maladminis¬ 
tration in his case. In the hearing of the complaint the follow¬ 
ing question, answer, and exception were noted: 

“Question .—‘Is an expelled member entitled to be heard in an 
Annual Conference, on complaint against the administration of 
the pastor and of the Presiding Elder in his case V 

“Answer .—Such a complaint is of the nature of an appeal to 
the Annual Conference on the questions of law concerned in 
the case, and a hearing cannot be denied on the ground that the 
complainant is not in the Church. But, inasmuch as the 
Discipline also provides other and milder remedies for errors in 
law, both of a pastor presiding in the trial and Presiding Elder 
presiding in the appeal of a member, it is obvious that the com¬ 
plaint of maladministration ought to refer only to serious errors 
deeply affecting the rights of the complainant. 

“Failures to observe rules of proceeding laid down, not in 
the law, but in commentaries on the law, must be weighed by 
their effect upon the administration of justice in the case; not 
every such failure can justly be characterized as maladministra¬ 
tion. 

“Where complaint is made against the administration in the 
case of an expelled member, as in all other charges made 
against preachers, the Conference may consider whether the 
nature of the complaint is such as to require a trial thereon. 

“Edward G. Andrews/' 

“Exception .—The following paper was immediately presented 
by M. C. Briggs: 

“‘The Bishop having ruled that an expelled layman can 
bring charges, in his own name, against a member of the Con¬ 
ference, I ask that an exception to said ruling be entered on the 
Minutes. 


Question 

referred 


“‘M. C. Briggs/" 


36 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


Stripped of all unnecessary verbiage, the real question is this: 
“May an expelled member, in any case, be heard in the Annual 
Conference on a complaint against the pastor or Presiding 
Elder for maladministration in his case ?” 

We answer that he may be so heard. It is conceded that while 
the expelled member labors under the disabilities of his sentence 
he is denied the religious privileges of membership, neverthe¬ 
less he still has legal rights which cannot be denied him until he 
shall have exhausted all the remedies which the law of the 
Church accords him. We concede that the trial before the 
Quarterly Conference on appeal is the final trial on the facts, 
but the accused member may be heard further on questions of 
law. 

1. He may prosecute an appeal, in the nature of proceedings 
in error on exceptions to the rulings of the administrator in his 
case. This appeal is to the president of the Annual Confer¬ 
ence. If serious error of law has intervened to the prejudice of 
the expelled member, the sentence of expulsion will be set 
aside, and a new trial awarded him in the proper court below. 

2. He may also complain of the administrator in his case to 
the next Annual Conference for maladministration, and if, upon 
proper inquiry, the complaint be sustained, a new trial will be 
awarded the expelled member, and the administrator may be 
censured. We therefore recommend to affirm the rulings of 
Bishop Andrews. 

In support of the foregoing we cite the Discipline, Paragraph 
70, Section 5, guaranteeing to every accused member the right of 
appeal; and Paragraph 210, making a preacher answerable 
before the Annual Conference on complaint of maladministra¬ 
tion; and also Appendix to the Discipline, pages 367, 368, fix¬ 
ing the status and rights of expelled members. 

We cite also Morris on Church Polity, page 35, in which, re¬ 
ferring to final trial on appeal in the Quarterly Conference, he 
says: “Even this is not necessarily an end of his case; the ex¬ 
pelled may complain to the Annual Conference of the adminis¬ 
tration, and if that body decide that he was expelled contrary 
to rule, he is thereby restored and the administrator censured.” 
See also Baker on the Discipline, pages 111, 116, 141. On page 
111 he says: “If the accused is expelled and dissatisfied with the 
rulings of the presiding officer, he has the following remedy: On 
a question of law either party may appeal to the decision of the 
president of the next Annual Conference. The accused may ap¬ 
peal to the ensuing Quarterly Conference, or he may charge the 
presiding officer with maladministration before the Annual Con¬ 
ference.” 

The same rulings and decisions were made in the General 
Conference of 1864, in the cases of Joseph Counts and another, 
pages 358 and 363 of the Journal. 


DECISIONS OF 1880 


37 


To avoid doubt and controversy hereafter as to the law in this 
class of cases we recommend that the following question and 
answer be adopted and entered in the Appendix to the Disci - 
pline: 

EXPELLED MEMBERS: RIGHTS OF 

Question. May an expelled member be heard on complaint 
in the Anmial Conference against the Pastor or Presiding Elder 
for maladministration in his case? 

Answer. He may be so heard. If, upon proper inquiry, the 
Conference sustain the complaint, a new trial will be avmrded 
the expelled member in the proper court below. He may also 
prosecute an appeal in the nature of proceeding in error or ex¬ 
ceptions to the rulings of the administrator in his case. This 
latter appeal is to the President of the Annual Conference. If 
serious error has intervened to the prejudice of the expelled 
member, the sentence of expulsion will be set aside, and a new 
trial awarded him 11 

On table for printing, May 21. 12 Amended by laying on the 
table the concluding italicized paragraph; and adopted as 
amended, May 27. 13 

Report No. 5 

APPEAL FROM JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 

In the matter of the appeal of Rev. F. A. Spencer, of the 
Ohio Conference, from the decision of a Judicial Conference, 
the Judiciary Committee report that, while an informality oc¬ 
curred upon the trial before the Conference Committee, it does 
not appear to have been objected to, and it was not of a nature 
to give rise to any suspicion of injury to the accused. If 
objection had been made at the time, the irregularity could have 
been avoided; it should therefore be regarded as waived. 

There does not appear to have been any serious error com¬ 
mitted, nor any injustice done to the accused. We therefore 
recommend that the appeal be not sustained. 

Presented May 25 14 Adopted May 27. 15 

Report No. 6 

DISPOSAL OF PARSONAGE PROPERTY 

The following question, submitted by E. P. Phelps and an¬ 
other, was referred to the Committee: 

11 For this concluding paragraph see Daily Christian Advocate, May 22, 
1880, p. 79. 

u Journal , 1880, p. 298. 

"Ibid., pp. 354-356. 

"Ibid., p. 317. 

"Ibid., p. 354. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 



38 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


“Has the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, either directly or through a Commission appointed by 
said Conference, the legal right to deed, sell, give, or in any way 
dispose of or transfer a church house or parsonage, held accord¬ 
ing to the law of the State and the Discipline of said Church by 
Trustees properly appointed, to or for the use of members and 
ministers of another Church or denomination, or for any other 
use or purpose, without the consent of the Trustees and other 
parties interested in it, under the Discipline of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church?” 

This question the Committee answer in the negative. 

Another question was submitted, which, for want of knowledge 
of the particular facts in the case, the Committee cannot answer 
further than is necessarily implied from the answer above given. 

Presented May 27. 16 Adopted May 28. 17 

It will be observed that only one of the six reports here 
presented and adopted involved the appeal of an individual 
from the decision of a preliminary Conference. So early, in 
other words, was the work of the Committee on Judiciary 
broadening to include the consideration of the great prin¬ 
ciples embodied in our ecclesiastical code. 


16 Journal , 1880, p. 335. 


17 Ibid., p. 380. 



VII 


DECISIONS OF 1884 

A T the General Conference of 1884, held in Philadel¬ 
phia, the Committee on Judiciary was again desig¬ 
nated by the Board of Bishops, and its duties were 
materially enlarged. On May 2 the following resolution 
was offered by J. M. Buckley, providing for the appointment 
and work of the Committee, and was adopted: 

Resolved, That a Committee of thirteen be appointed by the 
Bishops—one from each General Conference District and one 
at large—to be called the Committee on the Judiciary; to which 
shall be referred all records of Judicial Conference, appeals on 
points of law, and all proposed changes in the Ecclesiastical 
Code. 1 

Members of the Committee.—As announced by Bishop 
Harris, on May 6, the Committee was constituted as fol¬ 
lows : 

1. D. A. Whedon, New Eng¬ 
land Southern. 

2. J. M. Buckley, New York 
East. 

3. W. H. Olin, Wyoming. 

4. W. F. Sadler, Central 
Pennsylvania. 

5. W. G. Waters, Central 
Ohio. 

6. J. B. Quigg, Wilmington. 

7. J. H. Baker, North 
Indiana. 

G. G. Keynolds, who had been a member of the Com¬ 
mittees of 1876 and 1880, as well as Chairman at the 
latter General Conference, was again appointed Chairman; 
and D. A. Whedon, of the New England Southern Con¬ 
ference, was chosen Secretary. 

1 Journal , 1884, p. 74. 

2 Ibid., pp. 97, 307. 

39 


8. W. S. Prentice, Illinois. 

9. A. J. Kynett, Upper 

Iowa. 

10. M. A. Daugherty, Austin. 

11. G. W. Wells, Southern 

California. 

12. C. A. Loeber, Chicago 

German. 

At large, 

G. G. Reynolds, New York 
East. 2 


Appointment 
and Work 



40 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Reports of the Committee.—The following twenty-one 
reports, as presented and acted upon, are noticeable both for 
their number and for the variety of subjects which were 
considered: 

Report No. 1 

EPISCOPAL RESIDENCES IN FOREIGN FIELDS 

The Committee on Judiciary have considered the paper re¬ 
ferred to them touching the Third Restrictive Rule and the 
appointment of Bishops for foreign fields, and respectfully pre¬ 
sent the following report: 

Under the Third Restrictive Rule the General Conference has 
power to appoint a Missionary Bishop or Superintendent for 
any of our Foreign Missions, limiting his jurisdiction to the 
same respectively. With this exception, all our Bishops, other 
than Missionary Bishops , are equal in authority and jurisdic¬ 
tion, and subject to the same regulations of assignment of 
residence and work. The Methodist Episcopal Church now 
exists in different parts of the world, and the residences of its 
Bishops are assigned by order of the General Conference. 

It is, therefore, the opinion of the Committee that the Gen¬ 
eral Conference has power to fix the residence of any of its 
Bishops in any part of the territory occupied by the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. 

Presented; amended by inserting words italicized above; 
adopted, May 9. 3 

Report No. 2 

TRIAL OF LOCAL PREACHER: CHANGE OF VENUE 

The following question has been submitted: “When a formal 
complaint or charge has been preferred against a local preacher, 
has the Presiding Elder the right to remove the case from the 
Quarterly Conference where the accused holds his membership 
to another Quarterly Conference within the bounds of the Dis¬ 
trict if, in the judgment of said Presiding Elder, the change 
of venue is necessary to secure a just decision in the case?” 

Answer .—He has not, under existing provisions of Discipline. 

Your Committee, however, believe that such a provision 
should be made, and accordingly recommend the insertion of the 
following after Paragraph 222: 

“When, in the judgment of a Presiding Elder, a fair and 
impartial trial cannot be had in the Quarterly Conference where 
the accused holds his membership, the Presiding Elder may 
refer the case to some other Quarterly Conference within the 
bounds of his District for trial.” 


3 Journal , 1884, pp. 160, 369. 



DECISIONS OF 1884 


41 


Presented and ordered printed, May 17. 4 Read and adopted, 
May 23. 5 

Report No. 3 

REVERSALS BY JUDICIAL CONFERENCES 

The following paragraph, contained in the Address of the 
Bishops, has been referred to the Judiciary Committee for 
their opinion thereon: 

“It has been necessary to convene a considerable number of 
Judicial Conferences during the quadrennium. Our observa¬ 
tion leads us to commend to your consideration the question 
whether these Conferences ought to be longer permitted to 
reverse the findings of the Select Number or of Annual Confer¬ 
ence; or to remand a case for a new trial on merely technical 
grounds, or because of errors in the proceedings of the Court 
below, which errors do not materially affect the question of the 
guilt or innocence of the applicant.” 

The hearing of the appeals referred to in the above is regu¬ 
lated by Paragraphs 245 and 246 of the Discipline —the charges 
and specifications, with the minutes of the trial, and all the 
documents relating to the case, are to be presented to the Judicial 
Conference, and upon this record alone is the case to be decided 
(Paragraph 245). 

The point suggested by the Bishops, as we understand it, is 
whether the judgment of the Court below should be reversed 
and a new trial granted for technical errors not affecting the 
merits. We think it should not, with certain exceptions of a 
special character not necessary to be noticed here. Courts of 
law, as well as of equity, have generally adopted the rule of 
deciding appeals according to the very right of the case, dis¬ 
regarding such errors of the lower tribunal as plainly could not 
have affected the result. Informalities in the mode of proceed¬ 
ing, not prejudicial to the rights of the parties—even erroneous 
rulings in the admission or rejection of testimony, where such 
errors have been corrected at a subsequent stage of the trial, or 
when it is apparent they have not led to a decision different 
from what would otherwise have been reached—should not be 
allowed to vitiate a judgment which stands upon solid grounds. 
Unless the Appellate Court, however, can see clearly that the 
errors complained of have not operated to the substantial injury 
of the appellant, a new trial should be ordered. 

This view of the case derives confirmation from Paragraph 
247, which provides that “the General Conference shall care¬ 
fully review the decisions of questions of law contained in the 
records and documents transmitted to it from the Judicial Con¬ 
ferences, and, in case of serious error therein, shall take such 
action as justice may require.” 

4 Journal, 1884, p. 229. 6 Ibid., pp. 257, 369, 370. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 



42 BEPOBTS OP THE JUDICIAEY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


The general purpose of the code seems to be to secure sub¬ 
stantial right rather than to concern itself with unimportant 
errors. 

A “serious error” is one affecting a substantial right; any 
other mistake should not be permitted to interfere with the 
course of justice. 

Our conclusion is likewise in harmony with the report of the 
Judiciary Committee of the General Conference of 1880, and 
the action of the Conference thereon, in a case coming from the 
Ohio Conference. (See Journal of 1880, page 354.) 

But, for greater certainty in this respect, and also to give 
the Judicial Conferences the right in proper cases to modify 
the decision appealed from, we propose the following, to be 
added at the end of Paragraph 246: “It may affirm or reverse 
the findings and decision of the Annual Conference, or affirm 
in part and reverse in part; but it shall not reverse the same, 
or remand the case for a new trial, on account of errors plainly 
not affecting the result.” 

Presented and ordered printed, May 17. 6 Read and adopted, 
May 23. 7 

Report No. 4 

TRUST CLAUSE IN DEEDS 

In the matter of the trust clause in our deeds of Church 
property referred to the Committee on Judiciary, certain docu¬ 
ments before us show that the form of deed now in the Discipline 
does not adequately protect our property in many of the States, 
and that, by reason of certain decisions made by the courts, the 
title to such property is liable to be vitiated. 

There are at the present time sitting in this General Con¬ 
ference thirty-one members of the legal profession from differ¬ 
ent sections of the country, who are cognizant of the laws re¬ 
lating to the tenure of Church property. 

It is therefore recommended that a Committee of five lawyers 
and two ministers, be appointed, with instructions to prepare and 
report to this General Conference a form of deed which will 
adequately protect our Church property in all parts of the 
United States. 

Presented and read; amended by substituting the words 
italicized above; and adopted as amended, May 20. 8 


Report No. 5 

TRANSFER OF PREACHER: RIGHT TO APPOINTMENT 

The C ommittee on Judiciary have given attention to the fol- 

8 Ibid., pp. 238, 371. 


6 Journal , 1884, p. 229. 

7 Ibid., pp. 257, 370, 371. 



DECISIONS OF 1884 


43 


lowing questions, presented by Bishop Andrews for adjudica¬ 
tion: 

Can a Bishop, in accordance with the Discipline and usages 
of the Church, with or without the desire of a preacher holding 
an effective relation, transfer said preacher, without at the 
same time giving him an appointment in the Conference to 
which the transfer is made; and, if so, under what condi¬ 
tions and limitation? 

To this question the Committee give the following answer: 

The Episcopacy of the Methodist Episcopal Church is a 
unit, and our economy assumes harmony of action. But Bishops 
are many, and, in the division of the work into different Con¬ 
ferences presided over by different Bishops, a Bishop can in 
accordance with the Discipline and usages of the Church transfer 
an effective preacher, with or without his desire, into a Con¬ 
ference under the jurisdiction of another Bishop without at 
the same time himself giving him an appointment. But every 
effective preacher is entitled to an appointment within the Con¬ 
ference of which he is a member. His transfer to another Con¬ 
ference carries with it this right, and should not therefore be 
made without at the same time making adequate provision in 
a regular manner for its protection. Nevertheless, if a preacher 
requests such a transfer to a Conference not to meet for some 
time after his transfer, he cannot complain if he does not 
receive work till the next ensuing session of the Conference. 

Read and adopted, May 23. 9 

Report No. 6 

CONFERENCE INQUIRY NOT ESTOPPEL TO TRIAL 

In 1883 charges of corrupt and partisan maladministration 
were presented to the New York Conference against one of 
its members. The case was referred to a Committee, not for 
trial, but to inquire and report whether in its judgment the 
charges and circumstances of the case were such as to require 
or justify a trial of the accused on the charges preferred. After 
due inquiry and consideration the Committee reported that, in 
its judgment, while there were irregularities of administration, 
they arose from a mistaken judgment rather than from any evil 
intention on the part of the administrator, and that there was 
no occasion for further proceedings in the case. 

At the session of the Conference in 1884 substantially the 
same charges, signed by responsible members of our Church, 
were presented to the Conference; when the question was raised, 
whether or not the Conference was estopped by the proceedings 
of 1883 from entertaining these charges. Whereupon it was 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


9 Journal , 1884, pp. 257, 371, 372. 



44 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


held by the President of the Conference that, as there had been 
no trial of the accused on these charges, it is not unlawful 
for the Conference to hear and determine the case at its present 
session. 

The Committee report that the above ruling is correct. There 
is no principle upon which the dismissal of a preliminary com¬ 
plaint is a bar to a new complaint. Nothing short of a trial, 
resulting in acquittal or conviction, can have that effect. 

Read and adopted, May 23. 10 

Report No. 7 

RECOGNITION OF ROMAN CATHOLIC ORDERS 

At the session of the Wilmington Conference, beginning 
March 4, 1884, a preacher who had come to our Church from 
the Roman Catholic Church, and who, while a member of that 
Church, had been ordained a priest, applied in due form to be 
recognized as an Elder in the Methodist Episcopal Church on 
the ground of his ordination to the priesthood in the Roman 
Catholic Church. Pending this application, the question was 
raised as to his eligibility to recognition under the provision of 
the Discipline, in Paragraph 155, Section 2, for the recogni¬ 
tion of the orders of ministers of “other Evangelical Churches” 
who may desire to unite with us; whereupon the President of 
the Conference held that this applicant is not legally qualified 
for recognition under the Section of the Discipline, the Roman 
Catholic Church not being an “Evangelical Church,” within 
the meaning of that term as therein used. 

The Committee, after a careful examination of this question, 
report that the above ruling is correct, and for the reason 
therein stated. 

Read and adopted, May 23. 11 

Report No. 8 

METHOD OF BALLOT FOR DELEGATES 

The memorial of the Rev. Dr. John S. Porter, of the Newark 
Conference, being equivalent to an appeal on a point of law 
from the action of the Newark Conference, and the ruling of 
the presiding Bishop whereby such an action was allowed, re¬ 
jecting the vote of the said John S. Porter for delegates to the 
General Conference because he voted for more than one delegate 
on one ballot, the said Conference having ordered the election 
to proceed for one delegate and one only on each ballot, has 
been duly considered, and the following report is presented: 


10 Journal, 1884, pp. 257, 372. 

11 Ibid., pp. 257, 373. 



DECISIONS OF 1884 


45 


1. There is no disagreement as to the facts. A resolution 
was adopted by the Annual Conference in the following words: 

“Resolved, That in the election of delegates to the General 
Conference we ballot for one at a time, each ballot to contain 
but one name; and, when one delegate has thus been chosen, 
successive ballots be taken in the same manner for others until 
the whole number to which the Conference is entitled shall be 
selected.” 

2. John S. Porter did protest against the said action, and 
his protest was recorded in the Journal. 

3. The Bishop did decline to rule the action illegal. 

4. The ballot of the said John S. Porter, not conforming to 
the resolution above recited, was thrown out, and he was prac¬ 
tically disfranchised. 

The question turns wholly upon the legality of the action of 
the Newark Conference in deciding to elect but one delegate at 
a time. If that action was illegal, John S. Porter was right in 
refusing to conform to it, and the Conference, in throwing out 
his vote, illegally deprived him thereof. But if the action was 
legal, he by refusing to conform to it disfranchised himself. 

Was, then, the action of the Conference, under which the 
vote of John S. Porter was necessarily thrown out, legal? The 
Discipline, Paragraph 63, says: “The ministerial delegates shall 
consist of one member for every forty-five members of each 
Annual Conference, to be appointed either by seniority or 
choice at the discretion of such Annual Conference.” The power 
to decide whether by “seniority or choice,” taken in connection 
with the words “at the discretion,” implies the right to appoint 
one or more by seniority, and one or more by choice. This 
privilege is of such a nature that it carries with it the right to 
choose in any way. The usage, it is true, is to vote for all on 
one ballot, but this usage is not prescriptive. It is a custom, not 
a law. The Conference had power to make any rule which 
admitted of the expression of preference by choice and gave to 
all legal voters equal privileges. It did so in this instance, and 
the memorialist has no legal ground of complaint. 

Read and adopted, May 23. 12 

Report No. 9 

BOUNDARIES OF CONFERENCES DEFINED: MEMBERSHIP OF SUPER¬ 
NUMERARY AND SUPERANNUATED PREACHERS 

At the session of the Troy Conference, held in 1881, several 
questions were propounded to Bishop Wiley, then holding the 
Conference, in relation to the validity and effect of the changes 
that had been made in the boundaries thereof at the General 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


12 Journal, 1884, pp. 257, 373, 374. 



4G REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference of 1880. The Bishop responded, in substance, that 
the General Conference had not made the Bishops judges of the 
legality of its doings, but executive officers of the rules and 
regulations made by it for the government of the Church, and 
that he was bound in his administration to conform to the 
boundaries of Conferences as they are defined in the Discipline. 
He further held that under the Discipline (Paragraphs 474-476) 
the boundaries of the Vermont Conference must be made to 
include the State of Vermont, excepting the Poultney Charge, 
although it thus embraced several charges that up to that time 
had belonged to Districts which were placed in the Troy Con¬ 
ference. 

In response to a further question arising out of the change 
of boundaries above spoken of, the Bishop held that “an action 
of the General Conference changing the boundaries of an Annual 
Conference does not, of itself, affect the membership of super¬ 
numerary and superannuated preachers, their membership re¬ 
maining as before such action, till adjusted by mutual agreement 
by the Conferences affected by such change of boundaries.” 

The Judiciary Committee report that, in its opinion, the above 
rulings are correct, and should be approved. 

Bead and adopted, May 23. 13 

Report No. 10 

DEATH OF APPELLANT NOT AFFECTING APPEAL 

Your Committee, to whom was referred the above entitled 
subject matter, beg leave to report that the only question in¬ 
volved and submitted by your honorable body is, whether in 
the case of an expelled member of an Annual Conference who 
dies pending an appeal, said appeal survives to his heirs or 
legal representatives, or is the appeal determined and ended by 
the death of the appellant? 

The facts disclosed by the records submitted show that this 
case has been finally determined by the Annual Conference to 
which the appellant belonged, therefore leaving the right of 
appeal to a Judicial Conference. 

It further shows that the appeal was regularly taken and 
perfected by the appellant, and was at his death pending. 

This appeal could only be disposed of by the appellate tribunal 
which alone has jurisdiction. 

The legal effect of this appeal was to suspend the judgment 
or sentence until the case was heard and disposed of upon 
appeal .—Ecclesiastical Law, p. 416. 

We are therefore of the opinion that the member’s death did 
not affect the appeal, but that it is now pending and unde- 


13 Journal, 1884, pp. 257, 374. 



DECISIONS OF 1884 


47 


termined, and that the matter may be prosecuted by the deceased 
member’s heirs, or legal representatives, the same as if the 
expelled member of the Annual Conference were living. 

Read and adopted, May 23. 14 

Report No. 11 

WITHDRAWAL OF MEMBER FROM CHURCH 

The question of what is necessary to complete the with¬ 
drawal of a member from the Methodist Episcopal Church, re¬ 
ferred to the Committee on Judiciary, having been carefully 
considered, the Committee respectfully recommend that the 
following be added to Paragraph 179, Section 5, of the Disci¬ 
pline : 

“When any member in good standing proposes to withdraw 
from the Methodist Episcopal Church, he shall communicate 
his purpose in writing to the preacher in charge of the circuit 
or station. On receiving such notice of withdrawal, the preacher 
in charge shall enter the fact upon the records of the church.” 

Read and adopted, May 23. 15 

Report No. 12 

BOUNDARIES OF CONFERENCES: FIXING OF 

In the matter of the appeal of the Troy Conference from the 
ruling of Bishop Wiley in relation to the boundary between 
that and the Vermont Conference, the Committee have already 
prepared a report approving of such ruling, on the ground that 
the Bishop was bound in his administration, as an executive 
officer, to conform to the Discipline. But, as grave doubts are 
entertained as to the validity of the law giving the Com¬ 
mittee on Boundaries final authority to fix Conference lines, in 
order to save all questions and yet avoid debate in open Confer¬ 
ence on the subject of boundaries, we recommend the following 
amendment to the Discipline, namely: 

At the end of Paragraph 391 strike out the words, “and its 
decision shall be final,” and insert, in place thereof, “and when 
the Committee shall have fixed the boundaries of all the Con¬ 
ferences it shall submit its report to the General Conference, 
which shall immediately act upon the same, as a whole, with¬ 
out amendment and without debate.” 

Read and adopted, May 23. 16 


14 Journal , 1884, pp. 257, 375. 
“ Ibid., pp. 257, 375. 

18 Ibid., pp. 258, 375, 376. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 



48 KEPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Report No. 13 

ELECTION TO ORDERS WITHOUT EXAMINATION 

The following question was submitted to Bishop Warren in 
the Philadelphia Conference: 

“May the question of electing a brother to local deacon's 
orders, who has not passed an examination in the course of 
study prescribed for local preachers applying for deacon's orders, 
be submitted to a vote?'' 

The answer to this question was, “No." 

The Committee on Judiciary approve this answer. A Bishop 
may not submit to the vote of an Annual Conference the ques¬ 
tion of obedience to a law of the Church. 

Read and adopted, May 23. 17 

Report No. 14 

“ARE THERE ANY COMPLAINTS?" 

In relation to the question in Paragraph 99, Section 1, page 
71, of the Discipline , “Are there any Complaints?" referred 
to the Committee on Judiciary for an interpretation, the Com¬ 
mittee present the following report: 

The question refers only to those persons who are amenable 
to the Quarterly Conference, and to those offenses of which said 
Conference had jurisdiction. It does not refer to members of 
Annual Conferences who are amenable elsewhere. The Quar¬ 
terly Conference has jurisdiction over preachers on trial in an 
Annual Conference who may be accused of crime, and over the 
official and moral conduct of local preachers, and may hear com¬ 
plaints against them when presented in due form. With these 
exceptions, the question refers only to official misconduct of 
members of the Quarterly Conference. For their moral con¬ 
duct they are accountable to the same tribunals as are private 
members of the Church. 

Read and adopted, May 23. 18 

Report No. 15 

TRIAL, DISPOSITION, AND WITHDRAWAL OF PREACHERS 

The Committee on Judiciary, having had referred to it a 
memorial setting forth that the Discipline nowhere points out 
with distinctness the action which an Annual Conference may 
take after it shall have found a preacher guilty of immoral or 
imprudent conduct, has carefully considered the matter. 

It finds that the general authority given to the Conference, or 
recognized in the Discipline, is that the Conference may “de- 

18 Journal, 1884, pp. 258, 376. 


17 Journal , 1884, pp. 258, 376. 



DECISIONS OF 1884 


49 


termine the case,” or “the case shall be determined” by the 
Annual Conference, etc. 

It also finds that serious questions have arisen in the ad¬ 
ministration, whether a Conference may lawfully “depose” a 
minister from his office and leave him a member of the Church. 
While this has been done in several cases, it has often been ac¬ 
companied by controversy as to the rightfulness of the proceed¬ 
ing, and in some instances by protest declaring it to be un¬ 
warranted by the law. 

The Committee therefore recommend the insertion in the 
Discipline, immediately after Paragraph 76, a new Paragraph, 
to read as follows: 

“The Annual Conference has power to hear complaints against 
traveling preachers, and may try, reprove, suspend, deprive of 
ministerial office and credentials, expel, or acquit any member 
of the Annual Conference against whom charges may be pre¬ 
ferred; and, in case any member of the Annual Conference 
be deposed from the ministry without being expelled from the 
Church, he shall have his membership in the Church where he 
resides.” 

We also recommend that Paragraph 252 be amended by the 
addition of the following words: 

“Any member of the Annual Conference in good standing, 
who may desire to surrender his ministerial office and withdraw 
from the Conference, may be allowed to do so; in which case 
his credentials shall be filed with the papers of the Annual 
Conference of which he was a member, and his membership 
in the Church may be recorded in any society within whose 
bounds he may wish to reside.” 

Bead and adopted, May 28. 19 

Keport No. 16 

RELIGIOUS SERVICES WITHOUT CONSENT OF PASTOR 

The following question has been submitted: 

“When a superannuated, supernumerary, or local preacher 
makes an appointment and conducts religious services within 
the bounds of a station, circuit, or mission to which a pastor 
has been appointed, without the consent of the pastor, is the 
preacher thus obtruding his services guilty of improper conduct 
and subject to charges and trial?” 

Answer .—The appointment of a preacher to the charge of any 
mission, circuit, or station implies the right to control the reli¬ 
gious services of our Church within its bounds. In order, 
however, that the law of the Church may be clearly expressed, 
we recommend the adoption of the following, as item 5, in 
Paragraph 209 of the Discipline: 

” Journal , 1884, pp. 289, 376, 377. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 



50 EEPOBTS OF THE JUDICIABY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


“Any traveling, supernumerary, superannuated, or local 
preacher who shall hold religious services within the bounds of 
any mission, circuit, or station to which a preacher has been 
appointed in charge, when requested by the said preacher in 
charge not to hold such services, shall be deemed guilty of im¬ 
prudent conduct, and shall be liable to charges and trial under 
such rules and regulations as are provided in our book of Disci¬ 
pline for these several classes of preachers. A local preacher 
offending against this provision may be tried in the charge where 
the offense is committed.” 

Presented, read, amended as italicized above, and adopted, 
May 28. 20 

Report No. 17 

READMISSION OF CHURCH MEMBER : WHEN VOID 

The Committee on Judiciary has carefully considered the 
memorial of the Troy Annual Conference in relation to the 
trial and expulsion of Lewis N. Ireland from the Washington 
Street Church, in West Troy, and also the trial of Rev. Charles 
Gorse by the “Select Number” appointed by the New York Con¬ 
ference at its late session, wherein the said Gorse was found 
guilty of maladministration, and also the memorial and petition 
of the Rev. Charles Gorse in answer to the memorial of said 
Troy Annual Conference, and find that after the trial and 
expulsion of said Lewis N. Ireland from said Washington Street 
Church, in West Troy, the said Rev. Charles Gorse, stationed 
at Hyde Park and Staatsburg Charge, in the New York Con¬ 
ference, did receive the said Ireland into said society on proba¬ 
tion, and at the end of six months thereafter did receive said 
Ireland into full membership, without “contrition, confession, 
and satisfactory reformation” on the part of said Ireland, the 
said Gorse having knowledge of the trial and expulsion of said 
Ireland from said church. 

Your Committee are of the opinion that membership in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church cannot be gained in the above 
manner, under such conditions and circumstances, as the whole 
proceeding was fraudulent and evasive of the disciplinary action 
of the Church at West Troy, which was well known to said 
Ireland and said Gorse to be in violation and derogation of the 
Discipline of the Church. 

And your Committee are of the opinion that the said Ireland 
is not a member of the Church, and has not been such member 
since his trial and expulsion from the said Washington Street 
Church, West Troy. 

And your Committee recommend that the following be added 
to the resolution of the General Conference of 1852, page 73, 


20 Journal, 1884, pp. 288, 289, 377, 378. 



DECISIONS OF 1884 


51 


namely: “Nevertheless, when a member has been expelled from 
the Church, and has thereafter gained admission into the Church 
elsewhere without ‘confession, contrition, and satisfactory re¬ 
formation/ according to Paragraph 238, his membership is 
null and void, and any certificate of such membership should not 
be received.” 

Bead and adopted. May 23. 21 

Report No. 18 

LOCATION WITHOUT CONSENT 

The Committee on Judiciary has carefully considered the 
memorial of Seneca Howland and the arguments submitted 
in connection therewith. It appears that Seneca Howland, in 
pursuance of Paragraph 183 of the Discipline, was requested 
by the New York East Conference, at its session in 1881, to ask 
a location. And he having failed to comply with this request, 
a resolution was introduced at the session of 1882 to locate him 
without his consent. It was objected that the Conference could 
not legally take such action, because of the fact, required in 
Paragraph 183 of the Discipline, that “he' is so unacceptable, 
inefficient, or secular as to be no longer effective” in his work, 
“has not been ascertained by this Conference, by any proper or 
judicial investigation, and therefore the proceedings now pro¬ 
posed are not in order.” Whereupon Bishop Simpson ruled: 
“That the case has a right to proceed now without any form of 
trial, the Conference having, at its last session, requested him to 
locate on account of secularity, so answering the requirements of 
Paragraph 183 of the Discipline ” 

We find that the rulings of the Bishop and the action of the 
New York East Conference in the location of Seneca Howland, 
without his consent, are in accordance with the law of the 
Church, and recommend that they be confirmed. 

Read and adopted, May 23. 22 

Report No. 19 

TRUSTEES OF CHARTERED FUND: APPROPRIATION TO FOREIGN 
CONFERENCES 

The General Conference, having referred to the Committee on 
Judiciary the question whether the Trustees of the Chartered 
Fund have the right to appropriate any portion of the moneys 
in their hands to the foreign Conferences, we beg leave to 
report that no action of the General Conference can effectually 
authorize such appropriation, unless the same is in accordance 

21 Journal, 1884, pp. 258, 378. 

22 Ibid., pp. 258, 378, 379. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 



52 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


with the charter of such fund, granted by the State of Penn¬ 
sylvania, and the several amendments thereto. On examining 
such charter in the light of the history of our Church, we find 
room for doubt as to the right of the Trustees to make such 
payments for the benefit of members of Conferences out of the 
United States. 

The Trustees entertain such doubts, and no decision we might 
make would be binding upon them, or protect them in case of 
error. If it be considered desirable to press the question, we 
recommend that a case should be agreed upon between the 
Trustees and the General Conference, as representing all the 
Annual Conferences, to be submitted to some competent tribunal, 
for the purpose of settling the above question, and if the Trustees 
should consent to unite in such case, that the Book Agents at 
New York city be authorized and empowered to unite in the 
same on behalf of the General Conference. 

Bead and adopted, May 23. 23 

Beport No. 20 

RESTORATION TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP 

The Committee on Judiciary, having duly considered the 
memorial of L. M. Walters, praying the General Conference to 
restore him to membership in the Church, present the following 
report: 

The memorialist represents that, without his knowledge or 
consent, he was, by the action of the District Conference, de¬ 
clared to be withdrawn from the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
and by the action of the preacher in charge of Bedford, in the 
Des Moines Conference, he was recorded as withdrawn, and 
that he was thus illegally deprived of his membership in the 
Church. He further represents that he has failed to obtain a 
hearing by the Des Moines Annual Conference, and now comes 
to this General Conference for relief, praying it to restore his 
membership. 

Upon the facts, as stated by the memorialist, the Committee 
are of the opinion that the remedy sought is not in an applica¬ 
tion to this General Conference, but in a complaint against the 
preacher in charge for maladministration, which, of course, is 
still open to him. The prayer should therefore be denied. 

Bead and adopted, May 23. 24 

Beport No. 21 

CLAIM OF PREACHER DURING SUSPENSION 

Your Committee, to whom was referred the following ques- 

23 Journal , 1884, pp. 258, 379. 

“Ibid., pp. 258, 379, 380. 



DECISIONS OF 1884 


53 


tion, namely: “What claim has a traveling preacher on a con¬ 
gregation or an Annual Conference for his salary, who has been 
tried and suspended in the interval of Annual Conference ses¬ 
sions, and the Annual Conference, on further investigation, finds 
him not guilty of the crime for which he has been suspended?” 
have carefully considered the same, and report that, while they 
recognize and are mindful that to deprive a traveling preacher 
of his salary while suspended on unsustained charges works a 
hardship, yet your Committee submit that, by the law of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, where a traveling preacher is 
suspended and restored, as in the case stated herein, he has no 
claim on the congregation or the Annual Conference for his 
salary during such period of suspension; and to your Committee 
this law appears to be wise, as well as based upon sound judicial 
principles. 

Read and adopted, May 23. 25 

It is noticeable that all the twenty-one reports were 
adopted which were presented by the Committee on Judiciary 
at this session of the General Conference. Of this total, 
Numbers 17 and 20 involved the restoration to Church 
membership of laymen who had been expelled or declared 
withdrawn. Report Number 18 also had for its subject the 
location of a member of an Annual Conference without his 
consent. These were the first instances, it is to be remarked, 
in which the Committee on Judiciary, after its origin in 
1876, was called upon to return its judgment on the im¬ 
portant principles thus involved. 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


15 Journal, 1884, pp. 258, 380. 



VIII 


Powers of 
Committee 


DECISIONS OF 1888 

A T the General Conference of 1888, held in the city 
of New York, the Committee on Judiciary was again 
appointed by the Bishops, as in 1884. The powers of 
the Committee were, however, enlarged, as indicated in the 
closing clause of the resolution of J. M. Buckley, which 
was duly adopted: 

Resolved, That a Committee of thirteen be appointed by the 
Bishops, one from each General Conference District, to be 
called the Committee on the Judiciary, to which shall be re¬ 
ferred all records of Judicial Conferences, appeals on points of 
law, all proposed changes in the Ecclesiastical Code, and all 
questions relating to our fundamental law. 1 

Members of the Committee.—As subsequently announced 
by Bishop Andrews, the Committee was constituted as fol¬ 
lows : 

1. S. F. Upham, New Eng¬ 
land. 

2. John Miley, New York. 

3. L. C. Queal, Central New 
York. 

4. C. W. Smith, Pittsburg. 

5. I. W. Joyce, Cincinnati. 

6. W. F. Speake, Baltimore. 

7. E. F. Ritter, Southeast 
Indiana. 

Of this Committee, S. F. Upham served as Chairman, and 
C. W. Smith as Secretary. 

Consideration of Abstract Questions.—The following 

resolution concerning abstract questions referred to the Com¬ 
mittee was subsequently adopted: 

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be relieved 
from the consideration of all abstract questions of law referred 
1 Journal, 1888, p. 89. 

8 Ibid., pp. 97, 389. 


8. L. R. Fiske, Detroit. 

9. M. B. Reese, Nebraska. 

10. T. B. Ford, Arkansas. 

11. J. W. Locke, Southern 

Illinois. 

12. William Koeneke, St. 

Louis German. 

13. J. W. Lacey, Colorado. 2 


54 



DECISIONS OF 1888 


55 


to them, and that they shall report such matters only as are 
involved in actual cases submitted. 3 

Reports of the Committee. —During the session of the 
Conference eleven reports, including one not recorded, were 
presented by the Committee, with the following results in the 
several instances: 

Report No. 1 

LOCATED PREACHER AS LAY DELEGATE 

Question. —Has a Methodist preacher, who has not been 
located for full five years, such membership as a layman in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church as the Discipline requires, in order 
to eligibility to election as lay delegate to the General Confer¬ 
ence ? 

Answer. —Yes; provided he has been a member of the Church 
for five consecutive years. The Discipline does not require that 
he should have been a lay member for five consecutive years, to 
make him eligible to such election. 

Read and adopted. May ll. 4 

Report No. 2 

SEAT OF F. W. HOYT AS ALTERNATE LAY DELEGATE 

Mrs. Harriet A. Hobart was elected by the Lay Electoral Con¬ 
ference of the Minnesota Conference as an alternate for Mrs. 
Mary C. Nind, and F. W. Hoyt was elected alternate for G. H. 
Hazzard; and as both Mrs. Nind and Mrs. Hobart have been 
by this General Conference declared ineligible to the seats to 
which they were elected, can the said F. W. Hoyt take the seat 
in this body thus made vacant? 

Answer. —Yes; G. H. Hazzard having taken the seat to which 
he was elected, and there being a vacancy in the seat of the other 
lay delegates, and F. W. Hoyt having been duly elected as an 
alternate delegate, in our opinion he is entitled to the vacant 
seat. 

Read and adopted, May 12. 5 

Report No. 3 

PRIVILEGES OF MEMBERS ’. ELECTION OF DELEGATES 

The Committee on the Judiciary has carefully considered a 
memorial from the Newark Conference touching the rights of 
ministers and members of the Church in certain specified cases, 

3 Journal , 1888, p. 275. 

4 Ibid., pp. 194, 453. 

6 Ibid., pp. 221, 453. 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Original Report 



56 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Questions 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


and beg leave to report that, as substantially the same ques¬ 
tions were submitted in the General Conference of 1884 and 
fully answered by it, as may be seen on page 373 of the Journal 
of said Conference, and as stated in brief in Paragraph 544 of 
the Discipline, we deem further action unnecessary. 6 

(Revised Report) 

We have carefully considered the memorial from the Newark 
Conference, signed by John S. Porter and others, touching the 
rights of ministers and members in certain specified cases, and 
beg leave to submit the questions asked, together with our an¬ 
swers : 

Question 1. —Is it competent or lawful for the Church in any 
department of administration to deprive a member of any privi¬ 
lege members have been accustomed to enjoy, such as meeting 
in class and love feast, communing at the Lord’s table, or voting 
at any election, and having his vote counted, without first pro¬ 
ceeding against him in regular form of trial as provided in the 
Discipline and convicting him of some violation of the rules ? 

Answer. —It is not competent for the Church to deprive any 
one of its members who is in good standing of any privilege to 
which he is entitled under the law, unless he shall insist upon 
using his privilege in an irregular or unlawful manner. 

Question 2. —Does the law of the Church giving the Annual 
Conferences the right to decide whether the delegates to the Gen¬ 
eral Conference shall be appointed by seniority or choice imply 
the right to compel the voters to limit their ballots to one name 
when more than one are to be chosen? 

Question 3. —Is it lawful for the Annual Conference to re¬ 
ject and throw out, without counting, the vote of a member for 
delegates to the General Conference for any cause? 

Question Jf .—Is it lawful and right for an Annual Confer¬ 
ence to annex any penalty of any kind whatever, or so to con¬ 
strue any resolution or rule of action, as to imply a penalty or 
disability to enjoy any privilege of a member? 

Answer. —Questions 2, 3, and 4 were in substance submitted 
to the General Conference of 1884, and by it completely answered 
(see Journal, page 373), an epitome of which may be found in 
Paragraph 514 of the Discipline, as follows: “When an Annual 
Conference is entitled to more than one ministerial delegate to 
the General Conference, it is not unlawful for the Conference 
to ballot for one delegate at a time.” We therefore deem further 
decision unnecessary. 

Read and recommitted. May 14. 7 Read as revised and 
adopted. May 21. 8 

6 For this original report see Daily Christian Advocate , May 15,1888, p. 98. 

7 Journal, 1888, p. 246. 

8 Ibid. t pp. 305, 453, 454. 



DECISIONS OE 1888 


57 


Report No. 4 

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PARAGRAPH 188 : LOCATION WITHOUT 

TRIAL 

Presented, read, and recommitted, May 14. 9 Not again pre¬ 
sented. 10 

Report No. 5 

PRESIDING ELDERS : EPISCOPACY 

Majority and Minority reports presented; both laid on table, 
May 17. * 11 Not afterward taken up. 12 

Report No. 6 

SUPERNUMERARY RELATION WITHOUT CONSENT 

We have carefully considered the appeal of William E. Tomp- 
kinson, of the Wilmington Conference, from the decision of 
Bishop Warren, and would respectfully report the facts and our 
opinion, as follows: 

At the session of the Wilmington Conference, held in 1887, 
William E. Tompkinson was requested to take a supernumerary 
relation, which he refused to do. Thereupon a motion was made 
to place him in this relation, and the motion was entertained by 
Bishop Warren. The said Tompkinson then and there claimed 
that the motion was not in order, as the Discipline, Paragraph 
186, defines a supernumerary preacher to be “one who, because 
of impaired health, is temporarily unable to perform effective 
work,” and that his health was not impaired, and that his work 
was effective. The Bishop adhered to his decision, and the said 
Tompkinson took an appeal from this decision, which was noted 
in the Journal. The appeal is against the decision of the Bishop 
in entertaining the above-named motion, and is based on the 
claim that the said appellant was not in impaired health and that 
he was able to do effective work. 

In our opinion the appeal is not well founded. The Annual 
Conference has the undoubted right to place a member in a 
supernumerary relation without his consent and against his pro¬ 
test. The Conference is the sole judge as to his health touch¬ 
ing this matter, and of his ability to do effective work. It was 
the right of the Conference, therefore, to pass such a motion 
as is here complained of, and it was the duty of the Bishop to 
entertain it and declare the result. For these reasons we recom¬ 
mend that the appeal be dismissed. 

Read and adopted, May 21. 13 


9 Journal , 1888, p. 246. 12 See part II, pp. 257, 258. 

10 See Part II, p. 256. 13 Journal , 1888, pp. 305, 454, 455. 

11 Journal, 1888, p. 275. 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 



58 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Report Ho. 7 

Ho such report is found in the Journal or Daily Christian 
Advocate of the General Conference of 1888. 14 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Report Ho. 8 

ILLEGAL DEPRIVATION OF CREDENTIALS 

A memorial presented by E. W. Culver, of the Vermont Con¬ 
ference, submits the record of the action of that Conference, by 
which it deprived J. Evans, a local elder, of his credentials, and 
asks a decision as to the legality of said action. The record 
shows that a member of the Conference called attention to the 
fact that the said Evans, who lived within the bounds of that 
Conference, did not then have membership in any church, and 
that he had not had such membership for twenty years past, 
and moved that the Conference demand the return of his parch¬ 
ments. The motion was passed, and the parchments were de¬ 
manded and returned. Was this action legal? 

The Discipline clearly answers the question. Paragraph 189 
says that the Quarterly Conference “shall have authority to try, 
suspend, and deprive of ministerial office and credentials, expel, 
or acquit any local preacher”; and Paragraph 190 says: “Every 
local elder, deacon, or preacher shall be amenable to the District 
or Quarterly Conference where he resides for his Christian char¬ 
acter and the faithful performance of the duties of his minis¬ 
terial office.” As local preachers of all grades are thus made 
amenable to the District or Quarterly Conference, the Annual 
Conference has no jurisdiction, and therefore the action of the 
Vermont Conference in the above case was not legal. 

Read and adopted, May 29. 15 

Report Ho. 9 

RIGHT OF APPEAL: CHURCH MEMBER 

We have carefully considered a petition, signed by a number 
of members of the Methodist Episcopal Church residing within 
the bounds of the Des Moines Conference, praying that justice 
be secured to John Scott, a member expelled from the Church, 
and respectfully submit the following report: 

The papers show that John Scott, a member within the bounds 
of Killerton Charge, was regularly tried, convicted, and expelled 
from the Church. Thereupon he took an appeal, and, fearing 
that justice could not be secured in the Quarterly Conference 
of Killerton Charge, he requested to have it heard by some other 
Conference. 


14 See Part II, p. 258. 

16 Journal, 1888, pp. 351, 455. 



DECISIONS OF 1888 


59 


The Presiding Elder granted the request, and carried the case 
to the Quarterly Conference of Osceola Station. When the time 
for the hearing arrived, the Presiding Elder presented the ap¬ 
peal, and, after a statement by the parties had been made, sub¬ 
mitted the question, “Shall the appeal be entertained ?” 

A vote was taken, and the Quarterly Conference refused to 
entertain the appeal. Thus ended the matter there. 

“The Presiding Elder now holds that he has no further juris¬ 
diction in the case, and that John Scott’s rights are all ex¬ 
hausted.” We think not. The papers show that the said Scott 
had availed himself of his right to appeal in regular manner, 
and had never forfeited the right; that the appeal was before 
the Osceola Quarterly Conference in due form; and, further, 
there is testimony submitted tending to show that it was not 
heard partly, if not chiefly, because the members of that Quar¬ 
terly Conference “thought they had as much business of their 
own as they could attend to, and that they could not take up this 
appeal without neglecting their own business to some extent.” 

Upon this statement of facts it is the opinion of your Com¬ 
mittee that the said John Scott has never had accorded to him 
the right of appeal which is guaranteed to every member of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. We think the Quarterly Confer¬ 
ence at Osceola erred in refusing to entertain the appeal when 
it was before it in a regular manner, and that the Presiding 
Elder then erred in not carrying it to another Quarterly Con¬ 
ference, where it would have been heard. We recommend, there¬ 
fore, that the Presiding Elder of the Chariton District, Des 
Moines Conference, be instructed to accord to John Scott his 
right to have his appeal heard before some Quarterly Conference 
in his District, where it will be fairly considered. 

Presented, May 29. 16 Adopted, May 29. 17 

Report No. 10 

FRANK STREET CHURCH, ROCHESTER, N. Y. 

Presented, May 29. 18 Not acted upon. 19 

Report No. 11 

TRUSTEES AS MEMBERS OF A QUARTERLY CONFERENCE 

Presented, May 29. 20 Not acted upon. 21 

At this session of the General Conference occurred the 
first instances of reports presented but not adopted. There 

16 Journal , 1888, p. 349. 19 See Part II, pp. 258, 259. 

lT Ibid., pp. 351, 455, 456. » Journal, 1888, p. 349. 

19 Ibid., p. 349. 21 See Part II, p. 259. 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 



60 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


are four of these; their subjects are indicated in the preced¬ 
ing pages; and their full text may be found at the appropriate 
place in Part II. Their omission is not the measure of their 
importance. 


IX 


DECISIONS OF 1892 


D IFFERENT motions were made at the General Con¬ 
ference of 1892, in Omaha, as to the number and 
the appointment of the Committee on Judiciary. 
The action finally taken, on motion of T. B. Neely, was that 
the Committee should “consist of an odd number of mem¬ 
bers/* * with one “member at large/* and that these should 
“be nominated by the Bishops and confirmed by the General 
Conference.” 1 

Members of the Committee.—On the sixth day of the ses¬ 
sion, the following were nominated by the Bishops as the 
Committee on Judiciary, and were duly confirmed by the 
General Conference: 


1. W. P. Dillingham, Ver¬ 

mont. 

2. J. M. Buckley, New York 

East. 

3. J. E. Bills, Genesee. 

4. C. W. Smith, Pittsburg. 

5. D. H. Moore, Ohio. 

6. S. S. Henkle, Baltimore. 

7. J. P. D. John, Southeast 

Indiana. 

8. F. M. Bristol, Rock River. 


9. H. R. Brill, Minnesota. 

10. J. B. Maxfield, North 

Nebraska. 

11. J. C. Hartzell, Louisiana. 

12. T. B. Sweet, Kansas. 

13. C. H. Afflerbach, Cali¬ 

fornia German. 

14. J. D. Hammond, Cali¬ 

fornia. 

At large: John Miley. New 
York. 2 


Of this Committee, H. R. Brill was chosen as Chairman 
and C. W. Smith as Secretary. 

Reports of the Committee.—The following twelve reports 
were presented by the Committee, and were successively acted 
upon, the substitute in the instance of Report No. 2 being 
indicated in its proper place: 

Report No. 1 

“one third of either order” 

Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred the 
communication of the Bishops asking for an interpretation of 

1 Journal, 1892, pp. 104, 105. 

*Ibid., pp. 147, 435. 

61 


Number and 
Appointment 


Question 

referred 



62 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

notion 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Substitute 


the words “one third of either order,” found in Paragraph 61 
of the Discipline , edition of 1888, respectfully reports: 

In the opinion of your Committee the meaning of the words 
“one third of either order,” as used in said Paragraph 61 of 
the Discipline, is one third of the members of the order present 
in the Conference when the call is made—that is to say, to 
sustain a call for a Vote by orders one third of the members of 
the order calling present in the Conference when the call is 
made is required, and not one third of all the members of the 
order elected and returned. 

Read and adopted, May 19. 3 

Report No. 2 

MEANING OF “LAY DELEGATES,” “LAYMEN,” AND "MEMBERS OF 
THE CHURCH IN FULL CONNECTION” 

Your Committee, to whom was referred the following: Re¬ 
solved, That the Committee on Judiciary be and is hereby in¬ 
structed to inquire and report at an early day . . . whether 
the terms ‘lay delegates/ ‘laymen/ and ‘members of the Church 
in full connection/ as used in Paragraphs 55 to 63, inclusive, 
express or imply distinction of sex,” respectfully report: 

Understanding that we are to declare the meaning of the 
words, and not to express an opinion as to the wisdom of the 
law, and applying the well-recognized rule of construction that 
the intent of the lawmakers in using the language must govern, 
and that the meaning to be put upon the words by us must be 
that put upon them by the General Conference and the Annual 
Conferences at the time they were adopted, and in the light 
of the history of the Church bearing upon the subject up to the 
time of the adoption of the provisions in which the words under 
consideration occur, and in the light of the discussions had at 
the time of their adoption, and of all the surrounding cir¬ 
cumstances, and in view of the fact that the last General Con¬ 
ference, acting in its judicial capacity, after a very exhaustive 
discussion, definitely decided that women were not included in 
these provisions, and that the Annual Conferences and the 
Church have accepted and acted upon that decision, we are of 
the opinion that said words, as used in the Paragraphs afore¬ 
said, do not apply to both sexes, and that they include men 
only. 

[For this report the following substitute, first presented in 
the form of an amendment to a substitute, was adopted.— 
Editor of Journal .] 

Whereas, The claim is made by the Judiciary Committee of 


• Journal , 1892, pp. 292, 485. 



DECISIONS OF 1892 


63 


the General Conference that women are now ineligible to mem¬ 
bership in the Lay Electoral and General Conferences; therefore, 

Resolved, 1. That we submit to the Annual Conferences the Substitute 
proposition to amend the Second Restrictive Rule by adding 
the words “and said delegates must be male members” after the 
words “two lay delegates for an Annual Conference,” so that it 
will read: “Nor of more than two lay delegates for an Annual 
Conference, and said delegates must be male members.” 

2. That this proposition be submitted to the Annual Con¬ 
ferences held during the autumn of 1895 and the spring of 
1896. 

3. That in the month of October or November, 1894, there 
shall be held in every place of public worship of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church an election, at which every member in full 
connection who is not less than twenty-one years of age shall 
be permitted to vote upon the following proposition: “Shall 
the Second Restrictive Rule be amended by adding the words 
‘and said delegates must be male members* after the words ‘two 
lay delegates for an Annual Conference/ ” so that it will read: 

“Nor of more than two lay delegates for an Annual Confer¬ 
ence, and said delegates must be male members” ? 

4. That said election shall be held under the direction of the 
preacher in charge and two laymen, who shall be chosen by 
the Quarterly Conference or Official Board, or in case they fail 
to elect, then by the voters present at the hour of opening of such 
election, who shall superintend the details of the election, and 
within ten days thereafter shall report the result of the election 
to the Presiding Elder of the District, who shall report the same 
to the presiding Bishop of the next Annual Conference, to be 
canvassed by the Conference and entered upon the Conference 
Journal; provided, that in the case of the failure of the preacher 
in charge to be present at such election the same may be held in 
his absence. That public notice of said election shall be given 
by the preacher in charge to each congregation at least twice 
during the thirty days preceding the election on the occasion of 
public preaching, whether on the Sabbath or on week days, in 
the church or other place where he preaches, with seven or more 
days intervening between notices. 

5. That if the amendment so submitted does not receive the 
votes of three fourths of the members of the Annual Conferences 
and two thirds of the General Conference, the Second Restric¬ 
tive Rule shall be so construed that the words “lay delegates” 
may include men and women, and thus be in harmony with 
the legislation of previous General Conferences. 

That the Secretary of this Conference send to the Secretaries 
of the Annual Conferences blank forms for certificates of the 
votes cast by the respective Conferences on this proposed change, 
and the Secretaries of the Annual Conferences are hereby 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


64 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

directed to send the result of said vote immediately after it is 
ascertained to the Secretary of this General Conference and to 
the Secretary of the Board of Bishops. 

Read, and substitute adopted, May 26. 4 

Report Ho. 3 

BISHOPS IN DELIBERATIONS OF BOOK COMMITTEE 

Your Committee has considered the matter embraced in the 
following preamble and resolution passed by the General Con¬ 
ference, to wit: 

“Whereas, The right of the Bishops to take part in the 
deliberations of the Book Committee, pending the election of an 
editor or agent, has been questioned; and, 

“Whereas, Several members of the Book Committee of the 
last quadrennium have filed a petition (see page 15 of the 
report of the Book Committee) asking the General Conference 
to define the duties and the rights of our General Superintend¬ 
ents in the election of an editor or agent by the Book Com¬ 
mittee; therefore, 

“Resolved, That this question be referred to the Committee on 
Judiciary with instructions to consider it and report their con¬ 
clusions to this body.” 

And it respectfully reports: 

While the language of the Discipline bearing upon the ques¬ 
tion involved (Paragraph 416) is obscure, and its meaning is 
not easily determined, the Committee is of the opinion that 
when vacancies are to be filled the General Superintendents are 
not present as part of the joint Committee, nor for the pur¬ 
pose of joint action in any particular with the Book Committee, 
but they are present as a separate body to hear the action of the 
Book Committee, and their only function is to concur or to 
refuse to concur in that action. They may take part in any 
discussion had by the Book Committee only by virtue of its 
request or permission. 

Read and adopted, May 25. 5 

Report No. 4 

MEMBERS OF SUNDAY SCHOOL COMMITTEE 

The Committee has had under consideration the matter of 
the appeal of William Masters from the decision of Bishop 
Bowman, made at the session of the Oregon Annual Confer¬ 
ence in the year 1889, and respectfully reports as follows: 


4 Journal , 1892, pp. 358, 359, 486, 487. 
6 Ibid., pp. 343, 487, 488. 



DECISIONS OF 1892 


65 


The Bishop held, upon an appeal from the ruling of the 
Presiding Elder, made at the Quarterly Conference of the 
Portland Methodist Episcopal Church, that it was not neces¬ 
sary that the persons appointed as members of the Sunday 
School Committee by the Quarterly Conference, under Para¬ 
graph 346 of the Discipline (edition of 1888), should, prior to 
their appointment, be members of the Sunday School Board, 
but that the only prerequisite to their appointment was mem¬ 
bership in the Church. 

It was claimed by the appellant that only such persons as were 
already members of the Board could be appointed members of 
the Committee. 

It is clear that the Board is made up of the pastor, the 
officers and teachers, and the committee appointed by the Quar¬ 
terly Conference. The Board cannot have an existence until 
the committee is appointed, and it would be impossible to ap¬ 
point a committee from a Board which did not exist. The 
provision in Paragraph 346, that the members of the committee 
shall be members of the Board, is only an unnecessary repeti¬ 
tion of the provision in Paragraph 345. The decision of Bishop 
Bowman was correct, and it should be affirmed. 

Read and adopted, May 26.° 

Report No. 5 

ORDERS OF ^BRETHREN CHURCH” 

Your Committee has considered the matter of the appeal of 
Noah Lathrop from the ruling of Bishop J. N. FitzGerald, made 
at the Minnesota Annual Conference at its session in 1890, and 
respectfully reports: 

George W. DeBolt, a minister of the “Brethren Church,” 
applied for admission to the Minnesota Annual Conference. 
The Brethren Church has but one order of ministers. The ques¬ 
tion being raised as to whether said DeBolt should be received 
as a Deacon or an Elder, Noah Lathrop, a member of the Con¬ 
ference and the appellant here, raised the point that he could 
only be received as an elder. 

Bishop FitzGerald, presiding, ruled that he could be received 
either as Deacon or as Elder, in the discretion of the Conference, 
and thereupon the Conference, by vote, admitted him as a 
deacon. 

The Committee is of the opinion that the ruling of Bishop 
FitzGerald was correct, and it should be affirmed. 

Adopted, May 26. 6 7 


6 Journal , 1892, pp. 357, 488. 

'Ibid., pp. 357, 488, 489. 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 



66 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Report No. 6 

IDAHO CONFERENCE AND JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 

Regarding the case of J. D. Flenner the Committee reports: 

At the session of the Idaho Annual Conference, held in the 
year 1888, charges were brought against said Flenner, then a 
member of that Conference. He was charged, among other 
things, with dishonesty, there being two specifications: First, 
that he had collected certain moneys for a periodical named, 
and had converted them to his own use; and, second, that he 
had received money from the treasurer of his church for the 
purpose of paying certain bills of the church, and had converted 
it to his own use. He was also charged with imprudent and un¬ 
christian conduct , the specification referring to certain acts with 
respect to a young woman named. 

At the trial the above-mentioned specifications were sustained, 
and the charges were sustained, and he was deposed from the 
ministry. 

Having been appealed, the matter came before a Judicial 
Conference composed of triers of appeal from Oregon, Columbia 
River and Puget Sound Annual Conferences, Bishop H. W. 
Warren presiding. 

The Judicial Conference voted to reverse the finding upon the 
first specification of the first charge, but sustained the find¬ 
ing upon the other specification of the first charge, and sus¬ 
tained the specification of the second charge and the charge, 
and it voted not to remand the case for a new trial. Thereupon 
Bishop Warren ruled that the Judicial Conference could not 
then modify the penalty imposed by the Annual Conference. 

The Committee is of the opinion that the ruling of Bishop 
Warren was correct, and it should be affirmed. 

Read and adopted, May 26. 8 

Report No. 7 

slander: person making charge 

In the matter of the appeal of J. E. Wright from certain 
decisions of Bishop E. G. Andrews: 

R. B. Mansell, a member of the Pittsburg Annual Confer¬ 
ence, was brought to trial before the Select Number, Bishop 
Andrews presiding. He was charged, among other things, 
with defamation, the charge being supported by specifications. 
The charge and specifications were signed by persons other than 
those alleged to have been defamed. 

Bishop Andrews, upon the objection of the accused, ruled out 
the charge and specifications, and held that the charge of 


8 Journal, 1892, pp. 357, 489. 



DECISIONS OF 1892 


67 


slander would only lie when made by the person claiming to 
have been slandered. 

In view of the fact that this construction of the law has 
obtained for many years (see Baker, p. 162, edition 1874), and 
in view of the evils which might follow a contrary rule, your 
Committee is of the opinion that the decision of Bishop Andrews 
should be sustained. 

After the ruling aforesaid, counsel for the Church offered to 
have said charges and specifications signed by the persons 
claimed to have been slandered, for the purpose of using them 
in said trial. The Bishop ruled that this would be in effect 
presenting new charges, and he refused to allow the charge and 
specifications then to be signed. 

In this matter also the Committee is of the opinion that the 
decision was correct, and it should be affirmed. 

Read and adopted, May 26. 9 

Report No. 8 

OHIO CONFERENCE AND JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 

Your Committee has carefully examined the records and 
documents in the case of Robert H. Wallace, a minister of the 
Ohio Annual Conference, tried upon certain charges and found 
guilty, and which case was afterward upon appeal heard by a 
Judicial Conference, and the decision of the Annual Con¬ 
ference affirmed in part and reversed in part. And your Com¬ 
mittee reports that it finds no serious error in the proceedings, 
and that no action is required therein. 

Read and adopted, May 26. 10 

Report No. 9 

REMOVAL OF TRUSTEES: QUARTERLY CONFERENCE MEMBERSHIP 
OF SUPERANNUATED AND SUPERNUMERARY PREACHERS 

"1. The Bishops are frequently called upon to explain Para¬ 
graph 328 of the Discipline, so as to tell when and by what 
method Trustees may or may not be ‘ejected’ from office, and 
they desire the General Conference to declare whether the 
Quarterly Conference has power to discontinue the service of 
Trustees at will. 

“2. They also wish a declaration as to whether, according to 
Paragraph 191, 192, superannuated and supernumerary preachers 
residing out of the bounds of their Conferences are members of 
the Quarterly Conference where they reside in such sense as to 
entitle them to vote therein.” 

* Journal , 1892, pp. 357, 489, 490. 

"Ibid., pp. 357, 490. 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Queation 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Questions 

referred 



68 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Your Committee, to which was referred the foregoing com¬ 
munication from the Bishops, respectfully reports as follows: 

1. In the opinion of the Committee, it is in the power of 
the Quarterly Conference to remove Trustees at any time for 
cause where statutes of the State do not prevent, subject, how¬ 
ever, to the provisions of Paragraph 328 of the Discipline. 

2. In the opinion of the Committee, superannuated and super¬ 
numerary preachers residing out of the bounds of their Annual 
Conference are members of the Quarterly Conference where they 
reside in such sense as to entitle them to vote therein. 

Read and adopted, May 26. 11 

Repoet Ho. 10 

VERDICT OF COMMITTEE : RULING OF BISHOP MALLALIEU 

In the matter of the appeals from the rulings of Bishop W. F. 
Mallalieu, made at the Minnesota Annual Conference in the 
year 1889: The Presiding Elder having received charges in 
writing against J. P. Oakey, a member of the Minnesota Annual 
Conference, summoned a committee of investigation. The com¬ 
mittee having met, upon motion of counsel for the defendant 
the Presiding Elder struck out the second charge, which charge 
was slander. Said charge had not been brought or signed by 
the person alleged to have been slandered, and upon this ground 
the charge was stricken out. The Presiding Elder also held 
that the committee must decide only upon the charges made, 
and that it had no authority to bring in a verdict of a differ¬ 
ent offense than that charged, unless the same was germane to 
the original charge. From these rulings an appeal was taken, 
and the same came before Bishop Mallalieu, who presided at 
the next session of the Minnesota Annual Conference. He sus¬ 
tained the rulings of the Presiding Elder, except he held that 
the Presiding Elder on receiving charges may rule out such as 
are not actionable before he cites the accused to trial or calls a 
committee; but, having placed charges in the hands of the 
committee and furnished the accused with a copy, his right to 
change the bill of charges is at an end. 

Your Committee is of the opinion that the ruling of the 
Bishop was correct, save that, under the circumstances of this 
case, it was proper for the Presiding Elder, upon motion of 
the accused, to strike out the charge of slander. 

Read and adopted, May 26. 12 

Report No. 11 

NORTH OHIO CONFERENCE AND JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 

The Rev. S. R. Squier, of the North Ohio Conference, was 


Question 

referred 


11 Journal, 1892, pp. 358, 490. 


12 Ibid., pp. 358, 490, 491. 



DECISIONS OF 1892 


69 


brought to trial before a Select Number upon two charges, the 
first, immorality, with one specification; the other, lying, with 
three specifications. 

The first charge and specification and the second charge and 
the second and third specifications were sustained, and he was 
sentenced to deposition from the ministry and expulsion from 
the Church. 

Having appealed, the case came before the Judicial Con¬ 
ference held at Columbus in December, 1891. 

The Judicial Conference reversed the findings upon the speci¬ 
fications of the second charge and the second charge. It re¬ 
versed the finding upon the first charge, but did not reverse 
the specification under that charge. Then, to quote the lan¬ 
guage of the record, the Conference “agreed that the testimony 
presented to this Judicial Conference in support of the speci¬ 
fication under the first charge proves that the Eev. S. E. Squier 
has been guilty of imprudent and unchristian conduct,” and it 
thereupon suspended him from the ministry until the next ses¬ 
sion of the Annual Conference. 

The specification not reversed under the first charge is very 
vague and indefinite, and it is doubtful whether it is sufficient 
to sustain any charge. The Judicial Conference did not find 
it sufficient, but from the testimony it formulated a new charge, 
of which it then found the accused guilty. Your Committee 
is of the opinion that the Judicial Conference in this affirma¬ 
tive action exceeded its authority, and that the sentence of 
suspension should be vacated and the accused be restored to all 
the rights of a traveling preacher. 

Head and adopted, May 26. 13 

Eeport No. 12 

EQUAL MINISTERIAL AND LAY REPRESENTATION I REPORT OP 
COMMITTEE 

Your Committee, to whom was this day referred the question 
raised upon the adoption of a report of the Committee on Equal 
Ministerial and Lay Eepresentation, reports as follows: 

The vote upon the adoption of the report having been taken 
by orders, and the two orders having concurred by a majority 
vote of each order in the affirmative, it appearing that two thirds 
of the General Conference had voted in favor of the adoption of 
the report, it is the opinion of the Committee that the report 
was duly adopted, and the recommendation has been legally and 
constitutionally made. 

Eead and adopted, May 25. 14 

11 Journal , 1892, pp. 358, 491, 492. 

“Ibid., pp. 350, 351, 492. 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 



70 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


It is fitting to notice Report No. 2 and its substitute 
presented at this session of the General Conference which 
involved a change of the most far-reaching importance. Hav¬ 
ing been instructed to interpret the terms “lay delegates/’ 
“laymen,” and “members of the Church in full connection,” 
the Committee on Judiciary returned the “opinion” that the 
words did not “apply to both sexes,” but that they included 
“men only.” For this report a substitute was adopted, sub¬ 
mitting to the lay membership in the autumn of 1894, and 
to the Annual Conferences of 1895 and 1896, an amendment 
to the Second Restrictive Rule declaring that lay delegates 
to the General Conference “must be male members.” The 
details of the adoption of this substitute—known during the 
succeeding quadrennium as the “Hamilton amendment”— 
for the report of the Committee on J udiciary are duly found 
in the Journal and the Daily Christian Advocate for 1892. 
The story of the final result of the ministerial and lay action 
is also written in the subsequent literature of the Church, 
and does not need present quotation. But it is proper that 
attention be here directed to an action which was a fore¬ 
runner of largest changes in Church and State. 


X 


DECISIONS OE 1896 


T HE membership and powers of the Committee on 
Judiciary, which should serve at the General Con¬ 
ference of 1896 in Cleveland, were proposed in the 
following resolution of T. B. Neely, on the second day of 
the session: 

Resolved, That there shall be a Committee, to be called a 
Committee on Judiciary, to which shall be referred all appeals 
from the Conferences or from individual ministers or mem¬ 
bers of the Church, records of Judicial Conferences, and all 
other law questions which may be referred to it by the General 
Conference. The above Committee shall consist of one delegate 
from each General Conference District and one delegate at large, 
and said members shall be nominated by the Bishops and con¬ 
firmed by the General Conference. 


An amendment to this resolution was offered by A. J. 
Kynett, to the effect that “the Committee be nominated by 
the members of the respective General Conference Districts, 
and three at large be nominated by the Bishops.” The amend¬ 
ment was adopted, and the resolution as amended prevailed . 1 

Members of the Committee.—The Committee was after¬ 
ward constituted by the choice of the following members: 


District Names 

1. E. B. Thorndike. 

2. Homer Eaton. 

3. L. L. Sprague. 

4. C. W. Smith. 

5. J. A. Mansfield. 

6. L. S. Bader. 

7. A. E. Mahin. 

8. Emory Miller. 


District Names 

9. H. B. Brill. 

10. J. B. Maxfield. 

11. H. G. Whitlock. 

12. J. H. Clendenning. 

13. William Schutz. 

14. John Parsons. 

At large: H. G. Jackson, S. 
W. Gehrett, L. C. Lay- 
lin. 2 


The Chairmen of this Committee were C. W. Smith and 
J. A. Mansfield; the Secretary was L. L. Sprague . 3 


1 Journal, 1896, p. 87. 

2 Ibid., pp. 102, 377. 

3 Ibid., pp. 153, 377. 


Amendment 
as to 

Nomination 



Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


72 EEPOETS OF THE JUDICIAEY COMMITTEE 

Reports of the Committee.—Ten reports were presented 
by the Committee on Judiciary during the session of the 
General Conference; and, of this total, action was taken as is 
indicated: 


Eeport No. 1 

INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL OP MINISTER 

Your Committee have carefully considered certain memorials 
concerning the changing of Paragraph 216 of the Discipline, 
and beg leave to recommend that said Paragraph be changed 
to read as follows: 

216. When a member of an Annual Conference is under 
report of being guilty of some crime expressly forbidden in the 
Word of God, sufficient to exclude a person from the kingdom 
of grace and glory: 

§ 1. In the interval between the sessions of the Annual 
Conference the Presiding Elder shall call not less than five nor 
more than nine members of the Conference to investigate the 
case, and if possible bring the accused and the accuser face to 
face; he shall preside throughout the proceedings, and shall 
certify and declare the verdict of the Committee; and he shall 
cause a correct record of the charges, specifications, proceedings, 
and evidence in the investigation to be kept and transmitted 
to the Annual Conference for a trial of the accused. 

But, in case the Committee of Investigation shall discover 
sufficient grounds, and it be deemed practicable by the Presiding 
Elder, to have a trial previous to the next session of the Annual 
Conference, then the said Committee shall formulate charges 
and the accused shall be brought to trial as hereinafter provided, 
to wit: 

It shall be the duty of the Presiding Elder of the accused to 
give him a certified copy of the charges and specifications and 
not less than thirty days to prepare for his defense, to fix the 
time and place for his trial, to call together not less than nine 
nor more than fifteen of the traveling Elders of the Conference 
of which the accused is a member, who shall constitute the Select 
Number for the trial; and, further, he shall notify the Bishop 
having charge over the Conference, who shall preside at the trial 
or appoint a traveling Elder to preside; and the records shall 
be kept and preserved by the Secretary of the last Conference or 
one whom he may appoint as his Assistant. This court shall 
have full power to try, reprove, suspend, deprive of ministerial 
office and credentials, expel, or acquit any member of the An¬ 
nual Conference against whom charges may have been thus pre¬ 
ferred, subject to an appeal by the accused to the Judicial 
Conference. 

§ 2. But, if the accused be a Presiding Elder, three of the 


DECISIONS OF 1896 


73 


senior members of his District shall inquire into the character 
of the report, and if they judge it necessary they shall call the 
Presiding Elder of any other District of the Conference, who 
shall proceed in the case as directed in Section 1. 

§ 3. If, in either of the above cases of investigation, the 
accused after due notice given him shall refuse or neglect to ap¬ 
pear before the Committee, the investigation shall proceed in 
his absence. The accused, whether absent or present, if the 
charge be sustained, shall be suspended by the Committee from 
all ministerial services and Church privileges until the ensuing 
x4nnual Conference, at which his case shall be fully considered 
and determined upon the evidence contained in the record of 
the investigation and such other evidence as may be admitted. 
When the trial is held, as provided in Section 1, the verdict 
shall be final, subject only to appeal to the Judicial Conference. 

§ 4. A Supernumerary or Superannuated minister residing 
without the bounds of his own Conference shall be subject, 
under the authority of the Presiding Elder of the District 
within which he resides, to the investigation prescribed in Sec¬ 
tion 1. But, in such case, all the papers, including the record 
of the investigation, charges, evidence, and findings, shall be 
transmitted to the ensuing session of the Annual Conference 
of which the accused is a member, on which papers and such 
other evidence as may be admitted the case shall be determined. 

§ 5. If, in any of the foregoing cases of investigation, counsel 
has not been provided for the Church or for the accused, the 
Presiding Elder shall have power to appoint counsel for both or 
for either. 

§ 6. An Annual Conference may entertain and try charges 
against its members though no investigation upon them has 
been held, and though an investigation has not resulted in 
suspension, due notice having been given to the accused. 

§ 7. In both the investigation and the trial of the minister, 
witnesses from without shall not be rejected, and the testimony 
of an absent witness may be taken before the preacher in charge 
where such witness resides, or before a preacher appointed by 
the Presiding Elder of the District within which such witness 
resides, provided in every case sufficient notice has been given to 
the adverse party of the time and place of taking such testi¬ 
mony. 

Your Committee also recommends that ft 224 be changed so 
as to read as follows: 

H 224. If a trial be not held according to the provisions of 
IT 216, § 1, then the Annual Conference may at its discretion 
try the accused member by any one of the three following 
methods: 

1. The entire trial, including the examination of witnesses, 
may be "by the Conference in full session. 


Finding of 
Committee 


74 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Partial report 
adopted 


2. The Bishop may appoint an Elder as a Commissioner to 
take the evidence in the case, in whole or in part; and said Com¬ 
missioner shall cause a correct record of the proceedings before 
him, and of the evidence signed by the witnesses respectively, 
to be laid before the Conference, upon which evidence and such 
other as may be admitted the case shall be determined. 

3. Or the Conference may appoint from its members a Select 
Number of not less than nine nor more than fifteen to try the 
accused, who shall have the right to challenge for cause; which 
Select Number, in the presence of the Bishop or of a Chairman 
whom the President of the Conference shall have appointed, and 
one or more of the Secretaries of the Conference, shall have 
full power to consider and determine the case according to the 
rules which govern Annual Conferences in such proceedings; 
and they shall make a faithful report in writing of all their 
proceedings, duly subscribed by the President and Secretary of 
the Select Number, to the Secretary of the Conference, and de¬ 
liver up to him the bill of charges, the evidence taken, and the 
decision rendered, with all other documents brought into the 
trial. 

But the Annual Conference may, when the required notice 
has not been given, or when a case cannot be tried during the 
session for want of testimony, refer it to one of the Presiding 
Elders, who shall proceed as directed in |f 216, § 1. 

(Report as adopted) 

The Committee recommends that Paragraph 216, Sections 1, 
3, 6, and 7, be so changed as to read: 

f 216, § 1. In the interval between the sessions of the An¬ 
nual Conference the Presiding Elder shall call not less than 
five nor more than nine members of the Conference to investigate 
the case, and, if possible, bring the accused and accuser face 
to face. He shall preside throughout the proceedings, and shall 
certify and declare the verdict of the committee, and he shall 
cause a correct record of the charges, specifications, proceedings, 
and evidence in the investigation to be kept and transmitted to 
the Annual Conference. 

§ 3. If in either of the above cases of investigation the 
accused, after due notice given him, shall refuse or neglect to 
appear before the committee, the investigation shall proceed in 
his absence. If in either case the charge be sustained, the 
accused shall be suspended by the committee from all ministerial 
services and church privileges until the ensuing Annual Con¬ 
ference, at which his case shall be fully considered and de¬ 
termined upon, etc. 

§ 6. An Annual Conference may entertain and try charges 
against its members, though no investigation upon them has 


DECISIONS OF 1896 


75 


been held, or though an investigation has not resulted in sus¬ 
pension, due notice having been given to the accused. 

§ 7. In both the investigation and the trial of the minister, 
witnesses from without shall not be rejected, and the testimony 
of an absent witness may be taken before the preacher in charge 
where such witness resides, or before a preacher appointed by 
the Presiding Elder of the District within which such witness 
resides; provided , in every case, sufficient notice has been given 
to the adverse party of the time and place of taking such testi¬ 
mony. 

Presented, May 21. 4 Various items laid on table, and re¬ 
mainder adopted, May 27. 5 

Report No. 2 

INVESTIGATIONS, TRIALS, AND APPEALS—DISCIPLINARY CHANGES 

Your Committee has considered the recommendations of the 
Bishops referred to this Committee, and begs leave to recom¬ 
mend the following for adoption: 

That Paragraph 214 of the Discipline be changed to read as 
follows: 

If 214. A Bishop shall have the right of appeal to the ensu¬ 
ing General Conference, if he signify his intention to appeal 
within three months of the time when he is informed of his 
conviction. And in case of an appeal the record of the trial 
and all the documents relating to the case, including the 
charges and specifications, shall be transmitted to the ensuing 
General Conference, which record and documents only shall be 
used in evidence in the trial of the appeal. The General Con¬ 
ference may, at its discretion, hear the appeal of a Judicial 
Committee of its own number. 

That Paragraph 217 be changed to read as follows: 

If 217. Any traveling or local preacher who shall hold reli¬ 
gious services within the bounds of any mission, circuit, or 
station, when requested by the preacher in charge not to hold 
such services, shall be deemed guilty of imprudent conduct, and 
shall, after the admonitions ordered in 218 and 233, and if 
he do not refrain from such conduct, be liable to charges and 
investigation or trial under such rules and regulations as are 
provided in our book of Discipline for these several classes of 
preachers. A local preacher offending against this provision 
may be tried on the charge where the offense is committed. 

That Paragraph 220 be changed to read as follows: 

If 220. When a minister disseminates, publicly or privately, 
doctrines which are contrary to our Articles of Religion or 
established standards of doctrine, let the same process be ob- 
served a s is directed in f 216, § 1; but if, after the charge is 
6 Ibid., pp. 297, 418. 


Conference 

action 


Questions 

referred 

Findings of 
Committee 


4 Journal, 1896, p. 269. 



76 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Findings of 
Committee 


sustained, the minister so offending does solemnly engage to 
the Committee of Investigation not to disseminate such errone¬ 
ous doctrines in public or private, the committee may waive 
suspension, that the case may be laid before the next Annual 
Conference, which shall determine the matter. 

That Paragraph 221 be changed to read as follows: 

If 221. When a member of any Annual Conference, in the 
interval between the sessions of his Conference, declines or 
ceases to do the work to which he was duly appointed, except for 
the reasons indicated in If 159, let the Presiding Elder proceed 
as directed in If 216, § 1. If the Presiding Elder fail to do 
this, he shall account therefor to the next Annual Conference. 

That Paragraph 223, Section 2, be changed to read as fol¬ 
lows : 

If 223, § 2. Errors or defects in judicial proceedings shall 
be duly considered when presented on appeal. But errors of law 
or administration connected with investigations under If 216, 
and errors of law made by a Presiding Elder in cases of appeal 
to a Quarterly Conference, are to be corrected by the President 
of the next Annual Conference on appeal in open session, and 
the Conference may also order just and suitable remedies for 
the injury resulting from such errors. 

That Paragraph 223, Section 3, be changed to read as fol¬ 
lows : 

If 223, § 3. Errors of administration not connected with 
judicial proceedings may be presented in writing to the Annual 
Conference for its judgment thereon, and the Conference may 
also order just and suitable remedies when the rights of min¬ 
isters or members of the Church have been injuriously affected 
by such errors. 

That the following shall be added at the end of Paragraph 
224: 

“When a minister is tried on a charge of immorality, and 
the Conference or the Select Humber shall find that this 
charge is not sustained by the evidence, but that the minister 
has been proven guilty of ‘high imprudence and unministerial 
conduct/ it may declare this fact, and subject the offender to 
reproof, suspension, or deprivation of ministerial office and 
credentials.” 

That in Paragraph 224, Section 3, insert after the word 
“proceedings” in the third line of page 127 these words, “duly 
subscribed by the president and secretary of the Select Hum¬ 
ber” 

That Paragraph 230 shall be changed to read as follows: 

If 230. When a local preacher (ordained or unordained) is 
reported to be guilty of some crime expressly forbidden in the 
Word of God, sufficient to exclude a person from the kingdom 
of grace and glory, the preacher in charge shall call a Com- 


DECISIONS OF 1896 


77 


mittee of Investigation, consisting of three or more local 
preachers, before which it shall be the duty of the accused to 
appear, and by which, if the charge is sustained, he shall be 
suspended from all ministerial services and church privileges 
until the next District or Quarterly Conference. If the accused 
refuse or neglect to appear before said Committee, the investiga¬ 
tion may proceed in his absence. And the preacher in charge 
shall cause exact minutes of the charges, testimony, and pro¬ 
ceedings in the investigation, together with the decision of the 
Committee, to be laid before the District or Quarterly Confer¬ 
ence, where it shall be the duty of the accused to appear for 
trial. 

That Paragraph 231 be changed to read as follows: 

If 231. Should the Conference order a trial, its President 
shall appoint a Secretary, who shall make a correct record of 
the proceedings and evidence in the case, and if the accused 
be found guilty, the Conference shall affix a penalty to the 
offense, according to If 193. 

That the following be added at the end of Paragraph 238: 

“But if, in view of mitigating circumstances and of humble 
and penitent confession, the Committee finds that a lower 
penalty is proper, it may either impose censure on the offender 
or suspend him from all Church privileges for a definite time, 
at its discretion.” 

That the following be placed after Paragraph 245, and 
numbered 246: 

If 246. If in the case of debt or dispute one of the parties is 
a minister, the duties laid on the preacher in charge in the fore¬ 
going Paragraph shall be performed by the Presiding Elder of 
the minister concerned. If both are ministers, the Presiding 
Elder of either may act in the case. 

That the number of Paragraph 246 be changed to 247, and 
the number of Paragraph 247 be changed to 248. 

That the number of Paragraph 248 be changed to 249, and 
said Paragraph to read as follows: 

1} 249. In all cases of trial of members let all witnesses 
for the Church be duly notified by the preacher in charge. 
The order concerning absent witnesses and witnesses from with¬ 
out shall be the same as that observed in the trial of ministers. 
The accused shall have the right to call to his assistance as 
counsel any member or minister in good and regular standing 
in the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

That the following be stricken out of the Discipline: 

If 249. If in any of the above-mentioned cases the preacher 
in charge differs in judgment from the majority of the Com¬ 
mittee concerning the guilt or innocence of the accused, he 
may refer the case to the ensuing Quarterly Conference, which 
shall have authority to order a new trial. 


Findings of 
Committee 


78 BEPOBTS OP THE JUDICIAEY COMMITTEE 


Findings of 
Committee 


That Paragraph 257 be changed to read as follows: 

If 257. A Bishop shall preside in the Judicial Conference, 
and shall decide all questions of law arising in its proceedings, 
subject to an appeal to the General Conference. The Confer¬ 
ence shall appoint a Secretary, who shall keep a faithful record 
of all the proceedings, and shall at the close of the trial transmit 
the records made and the papers submitted in the case, or 
certified copies thereof, to the Secretary of the preceding General 
Conference, to be filed and preserved with the papers of that 
body. But if the case be remanded for a new trial, the papers 
submitted shall be returned to the Secretary of the Annual Con¬ 
ference of which the accused is a member. 

That Paragraph 258 be changed to read as follows: 

If 258. In all cases of trial and conviction of members of 
the Annual Conference, an appeal shall be allowed to a Judicial 
Conference, constituted as hereinbefore provided, if the con¬ 
demned person signify his intention to appeal within three 
months of the time when he is informed of his conviction. 

That in Paragraph 260, for the following: “It may affirm 
or reverse the finding and decision of the Annual Conference, 
or affirm in part and reverse in part; but it shall not reverse 
the same nor remand the case for a new trial on account of 
errors plainly not affecting the result,” substitute the following: 
“It may reverse, in whole or in part, the findings of the Annual 
Conference, or it may remand the case for a new trial. It may 
determine what penalty, not higher than that affixed by the 
Annual Conference, shall be imposed. If it neither reverse in 
whole or in part the judgment of the Annual Conference, nor 
remand the case for a new trial, the judgment of the Annual 
Conference shall stand. But it shall not reverse the judgment 
nor remand the case for a new trial on account of errors plainly 
not affecting the result. - ” 

That Paragraph 261 be changed to read as follows: 

If 261. Appeals from an Annual Conference in the United 
States not easily accessible may, at the discretion of the Presi¬ 
dent thereof, be heard by a Judicial Conference selected from 
among the more accessible Conferences. Appeals from an 
Annual or Mission Conference not in the United States may be 
heard—at the discretion of the Bishop in permanent charge 
thereof, due reference being had to the rights and interests of 
all concerned—either by a Judicial Conference called by said 
Bishop from neighboring foreign Conferences, or by a Judicial 
Conference called by him to meet at or near New York, or by 
the General Conference through a special Judicial Committee 
appointed for the purpose. 

That Paragraph 264 be changed to read as follows: 

If 264. In case of condemnation the local preacher shall be 
allowed to appeal to the next Annual Conference; provided, 


DECISIONS OF 1896 


79 


that he signify to the District or Quarterly Conference his 
determination to appeal; in which case the President of the 
District or Quarterly Conference shall lay the minutes of the 
trial before the said Annual Conference, at which the local 
preacher so appealing may appear; and the said Annual Con¬ 
ference by a Select Number, as in the case of accused members 
thereof, or in full session, shall judge and finally determine the 
case from the minutes of the said trial so laid before them. 

Note. —For appeals of local preachers from judgments of the 
Annual Meeting of a Foreign Mission, see Paragraph 343. 

That Paragraph 265 be changed to read as follows: 

If 265. If there be a murmur of complaint from any excluded 
person in any of the above-mentioned instances (Paragraphs 
237-248) that justice has not been done, he, not having absented 
himself from trial after due notice was given him, shall be 
allowed an appeal to the next Quarterly Conference, which shall 
hear and determine the case, and no member thereof having been 
a member of the Committee for the trial of such person shall 
be permitted to vote on the case; and the preacher in charge 
shall present exact minutes of the evidence and proceedings of 
the trial to the Quarterly Conference, from which minutes the 
case shall be finally determined. And if, in the judgment of 
the Presiding Elder, an impartial trial cannot be had in the 
Quarterly Conference of the charge where the appellant resides, 
he shall , on the demand of either party, cause the appeal to be 
tried by any other Quarterly Conference within his District, 
after due notice to the complainant and appellant. 

Presented, May 22. 6 Taken up; amended (a) by striking out 
italicized words in Paragraph 261; and (b) by changing “may” 
to “shall” (italicized) in Paragraph 265; adopted as amended, 
May 27. 7 

Report No. 3 

amusements: paragraph 240 

Presented, May 22. 8 Not acted upon. 9 

Keport No. 4 

SUBSIDIES TO PUBLICATIONS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES 

Presented, May 22. 10 Not acted upon. 11 

Report No. 5 

CASE REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL 

Your Committee has had under consideration the matter of 
appeal of Charles W. Price from the decision of Bishop Thomas 

6 Journal, 1896, p. 273. » See Part II, p. 260. 

7 Ibid., pp. 297, 419-423, 10 Journal, 1896, p. 273. 

p. 273, > l See Part II, pp. 260, 261, 


Findings of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 



80 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Bowman, made at the session of the Ohio Annual Conference, in 
the year 1892, and respectfully reports as follows: 

Charles W. Price, a member of the Iliff Society, Rossville Cir¬ 
cuit, Ohio Conference, was charged, among other things, with 
immoral conduct, to wit, lying. Upon this charge he was con¬ 
victed and expelled from the Church. He took an appeal to 
the Quarterly Conference. Five members of said Conference 
had signed the charges on which he was tried in the court 
below, and two members of said Conference were witnesses 
against him in the court below. 

At the trial before the Quarterly Conference, J. T. Miller, 
Presiding Elder, Mr. Price made a motion to not allow the 
five persons who had preferred the charges against him and 
the two persons who had been witnesses against him in the 
court below to vote upon the case, and that they be ordered to 
retire from consideration of the same. This motion the Presid¬ 
ing Elder overruled, to which ruling Price excepted, and the 
charge, being sustained, appealed to the Bishop of the Ohio 
Annual Conference. 

Bishop Bowman, presiding, sustained the ruling of the Pre¬ 
siding Elder, and held that all members of said Quarterly Con¬ 
ference who had signed said charges had a right to vote on the 
guilt or innocence of said Price, to which ruling said Price, 
through his counsel, excepted, and thereafter perfected an appeal 
from said decision to the General Conference. 

Your Committee is of the opinion that the decision was 
erroneous, and it recommends that the decision be reversed, and 
that the case be remanded for a new trial by the Quarterly 
Conference. 

Taken up and adopted, May 26. 12 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Report No. 6 

NAME RESTORED TO CONFERENCE ROLL 

Your Committee has carefully examined the records and 
documents in the matter of the appeal of the Rev. John D. 
Knox, of Kansas Conference, from the action of said Confer¬ 
ence in striking his name from the Conference roll, and reports 
as follows: 

The records do not disclose any withdrawal from said Con¬ 
ference by said John D. Knox, and we are of opinion that the 
action of said Conference in striking his name from the Con¬ 
ference roll was made under a misapprehension of the facts in 
the case, and without authority of law. 

Your Committee therefore recommends that his name be 
restored to the rolls of said Conference, without prejudice, so 


12 Journal , 1896, pp. 283, 284, 423. 



DECISIONS OF 1896 


81 


that he may be required to answer any charge that may be 
brought against him arising out of the matter in question. 

Taken up and adopted, May 26. 13 

Report No. 7 

IMPROPER APPEAL 

Your Committee has had under consideration the matter of 
the alleged appeal of S. S. Benedict, a member of West Wisconsin 
Conference, from certain rulings of Bishop C. H. Fowler, and 
respectfully reports as follows: 

The alleged appeal is in the form of a written statement, 
signed by the appellant only, and dated April 24, 1896. 

The statement recites that one A. J. Davis, a Presiding 
Elder in said Conference, was guilty of maladministration while 
President of the Quarterly Conference of Marshfield Charge, at 
a meeting held on a date not given. 

None of the acts, rulings, and decisions alleged to have been 
made by said Davis, and which were the basis of the charge and 
specifications claimed to have been subsequently presented to 
Bishop Fowler are shown by any journal, record, or certificate 
of the proceedings of such Quarterly Conference, nor by any 
transcript of the same. 

It is claimed in the statement that the alleged charges were 
presented to Bishop Fowler at his room, during the session of 
the said Annual Conference of 1894; that the alleged rulings of 
the Bishop were then and there rendered orally; and that the 
statement contains no record whatever of such rulings or of the 
reasons given therefor, except as they appear in the words of 
the appellant recited from memory alone. 

It is not claimed that such charges were presented to the 
said Annual Conference, or that any action thereon was taken 
by the Bishop while presiding over such Conference. 

Your Committee is of the opinion that the statement does 
not constitute a proper appeal within the meaning of the 
premises of the Discipline relating to cases of alleged malad¬ 
ministration, and that it is both unjust and unfair to our 
Bishops to subject their decisions to judicial review without 
setting forth some authoritative statement setting forth the 
exact question presented to them and the precise ruling made 
thereon. 

We therefore recommend that the matter be dismissed with¬ 
out further action. 

Taken up and adopted, May 26. 14 


13 Journal , 1896, pp. 283, 284, 423. 

14 Ibid., pp. 283, 284, 424. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 



82 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Report No. 8 

APPEAL DISMISSED 

In the matter of the appeal of Joseph Pullman, a respected 
member of New York East Conference , from the decision of 
Bishop Merrill, your Committee respectfully reports as follows: 

When what is known as the Hamilton Amendment to the 
Second Restrictive Rule was before the New York East Con¬ 
ference, a motion was made that the Conference refuse to vote 
on the proposed amendment. 

Joseph Pullman objected to the motion as illegal, and ap¬ 
pealed to Bishop Merrill, presiding, to decide the legality of the 
motion. 

Bishop Merrill decided that the motion was in order and 
legal. From this decision Joseph Pullman appeals to the 
General Conference. The above statement of the case is gathered 
from a paper signed and presented by said Pullman. The 
[ alleged ] appeal is not accompanied by a transcript of the 
Journal of said Conference relating to the case. 

We therefore recommend that the subject of the paper be 
dismissed. 

The report was read and amended by changes indicated in 
italicized words, and by striking out the last clause not here 
inserted. Amended and adopted, May 26. 15 Reconsidered, and 
adopted as again amended, May 27. 16 

Report No. 9 

EXPELLED MEMBER—CASE REFERRED BACK TO DISTRICT 
CONFERENCE 

In the matter of the memorial of David H. Laney, a local 
elder in the Missouri Conference, for restoration of legal rights, 
your Committee respectfully reports as follows: 

Mr. Laney was tried on a charge of dishonesty by a Com¬ 
mittee of Investigation in the church at Savannah, Mo., and 
being found guilty was suspended. Upon trial in the District 
Conference he was found guilty and expelled. On appeal to the 
Missouri Annual Conference it would appear that the Select 
Number dismissed the appeal in the absence of the appellant, 
and without giving him or his counsel any opportunity to ap¬ 
pear before them and present the case. It is due to the Select 
Number to state that their action was based partly on the fact 
that the records of the trial did not show on their face any 
exceptions taken. It is also due to Mr. Laney to state that he 
claims that the record before the Select Number was not correct; 
that the preacher in charge, who was also Secretary of the Dis- 

16 Journal, 1896, p. 284. 

» Ibid pp. 293, 424, 425, 



DECISIONS OF 1896 


83 


trict Conference before whom he was on trial, had possession 
of the records, and refused to allow him to make a transcript 
thereof, to the end that he could perfect his appeal to the Annual 
Conference. It would also appear from the best evidence 
obtainable that the Secretary of the Missouri Conference did 
not retain possession of what few papers were before the Select 
Number, and that the same cannot now be found, thereby 
rendering it impossible for Mr. Laney to present his appeal in 
due form of law. The above statement of facts is based 
partly upon the recollection of Bishop Goodsell, presiding Bishop 
at said Conference, and partly upon the statement of counsel 
for said Laney. 

Your Co mmi ttee is of the opinion that Mr. Laney exercised 
due diligence in trying to get his appeal properly before the 
Annual Conference, but that he was practically denied this 
right by a suppression of the papers and records of the case. 

Your Committee would therefore recommend that the case 
be referred back to the District Conference, and that the said 
David H. Laney be restored to the rights and privileges of an 
expelled member seeking to appeal. 

Taken up and adopted. May 26. 17 

Report No. 10 

ANNUAL CONFERENCE—NUMBER OF MINISTERS CONSTITUTING 

Your Committee, to whom was referred the following: “Re¬ 
solved, That the Judiciary Committee be requested to consider 
the following question and report on Monday next: ‘If so much 
of an Annual Conference be set apart that the remaining terri¬ 
tory contains a less number of ministers than is required to 
constitute an Annual Conference, should this remaining terri¬ 
tory be constituted a Mission, or does it continue to be an 
Annual Conference V ” respectfully report that in our opinion 
such territory continues to be an Annual Conference. 

Taken up, adopted, and referred to Committee on Boundaries, 
May 25. 18 

Two reports of the Committee on Judiciary, which were 
duly presented to the General Conference of 1896, were for 
whatever reason not acted upon. Report No. 3 had to do 
with the constitutionality of Paragraph 240, relating to 
amusements; Report No. 4 considered subsidies to publica¬ 
tions in foreign countries. Both of these reports will be 
found elsewhere recorded. 19 

17 Journal, 1896, pp. 283, 284, 425. 

19 Ibid., pp. 282, 425, 426. 

19 See Part II, pp. 260, 261. 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 



xr 


Appointment 
and Duties 


DECISIONS OF 1900 


A T the General Conference of 1900, in Chicago, the fol¬ 
lowing resolution was offered by J. M. Shumpert as 
to the appointment and duties of the Committee on 
Judiciary, the motion being similar to that of 1896, with 
some unimportant verbal changes : 

Resolved, That there shall be a Committee, to be called a 
Committee on Judiciary, to which shall be referred all appeals 
from Conferences, from individual ministers or members of 
the Church, records of Judicial Conferences, and all other law 
questions which may be referred to it by the General Confer¬ 
ence. This Committee shall consist of one delegate from each 
General Conference District and three delegates at large, and 
said members shall be nominated by the Bishops and confirmed 
by the General Conference. 


A motion of C. W. Millard was laid on the table, to so 
amend the resolution that each General Conference District 
should nominate one member, while the Bishops should nomi¬ 
nate three at large. The original motion then prevailed. 1 

Instruction to the Committee.—On the fifth day of the 
session the following direction was given the Committee con¬ 
cerning their reports, in a motion thus recorded: 

J. M. Buckley moved a suspension of the rules, and on his 
motion the Committee on Judiciary was instructed, in all re¬ 
ports, to give a condensed statement of each case, and the reason 
or reasons for each decision, and that the Committee neither 
consider nor report any supposititious cases. 2 


Members of the Committee.—As chosen, the following 

constituted the Committee on Judiciary for 1900: 

At large: S. M. Coon, W. H. Skirm, E. W. Martin. 


1. William Burt. 

2. C. B. Lore. 

3. Austin Griffin. 

4. W. W. Evans. 

5. L. C. Laylin. 

6. L. L. Fisher. 

7. J. H. Grant. 


8. E. M. Holmes. 

9. Robert Forbes. 

10. D. W. C. Huntington. 

11. E. W. Cunningham. 

12. L. G. Adkinson. 

13. George Guth. 

14. J. D. Hammond. 3 


1 Journal, 1900, p. 118. 3 Ibid., p. 413. 

2 Ibid., p. 153. 


84 



DECISIONS OF 1900 


85 


Of this Committee, C. B. Lore served as Chairman, and 
William Burt as Secretary. 

Reports of the Committee—Fourteen reports were pre¬ 
sented by the Committee, with the following results indicated 
in each instance: 


Report No. 1 

RECORDS OF TRIALS, FILED AND PRESERVED 

The records of the following cases of trials upon charges were 
referred to this Committee: 

1. Josiah L. Albritton, Central Ohio Conference. 

2. Henry Ashton, Central New York Conference. 

3. John D. Knox, Kansas Conference. 

4. John M. Life, Ohio Conference. 

5. Philetus Y. Seever, Central New York Conference. 

Examination discloses no evidence that an appeal was taken 

in any one of these cases. 

They seem to be records of cases which, under the provisions of 
If 265, Chapter VI, of the Discipline, have been transmitted to 
the General Conference to be filed and preserved with the papers 
of that body. 

The Committee recommends that they be returned to the 
Secretary, to be so filed and preserved. 

Read and adopted. May 14. 4 

Report No. 2 

case presented: no appeal 

Received and ordered printed, May 16. 5 Not afterward acted 
upon. 6 

Report No. 3 

STATUS OF MISSIONARY BISHOPS 

No such report is found in the Journal of the General Con¬ 
ference of 1900. 7 

Report No. 4 

general conference as judicial body 

This report is not recorded in the Journal of the General Con¬ 
ference of 1900. 8 

Report No. 5 

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PARAGRAPH 248 

This report is omitted from the Journal of the General Confer¬ 
ence of 1900. 9 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


4 Journal, 1900, pp. 236, 455. 

6 Ibid., p. 258. 

6 See Part II, p. 261. 


7 See Part II, p. 262. 

8 See Part II, p. 262. 

9 See Part II, p. 262. 



86 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Report No. 6 

CASE ALREADY DETERMINED 

In the case of R. B. Mansell, of Pittsburg Conference, the 
Committee reports that the case was heard and determined by 
the General Conference of 1892, and is therefore res adjudicata, 
so far as the General Conference may act. Besides, the relief 
asked for is not within the jurisdiction of the General Con¬ 
ference. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 10 

Report No. 7 

MISCONDUCT OF BISHOP 

This report is not recorded in the Journal of the General 
Conference of 1900. * 11 


Report No. 8 

DECISION OF JUDICIAL CONFERENCE AFFIRMED 

In the matter of the complaint of Frank E. Day and Robert 
Smylie touching the decision of the Judicial Conference in the 
case of the Rev. T. M. House, a member of Northwest Iowa Con¬ 
ference : 

During the session of the said Northwest Iowa Conference, 
held at Sioux City., Ia., September 20-25*, 1899, the said T. M. 
House was brought to trial before a Select Number under a 
charge of “gross deception.” The charge was sustained, and the 
defendant was deposed from the ministry of the Methodist Epis¬ 
copal Church. 

The defendant appealed from this decision, and the said ap¬ 
peal was tried December 13, 1899, at Minneapolis, Minn., by a 
Judicial Conference, composed of triers of appeals from the 
Minnesota, Northern Minnesota, and West Wisconsin Confer¬ 
ences, Bishop Isaac W. Joyce presiding. The following verdict 
was rendered by the said Judicial Conference: “The Judicial 
Conference in the case of the Methodist Episcopal Church vs. 
T. M. House hereby modifies the penalty from ‘expulsion from 
the ministry’ to suspension from the ministry until the ensuing 
session of his Conference.” 

Against this decision Frank E. Day and Robert Smylie, of the 
counsel of the Church, complain, “challenging the action of 
the Judicial Conference on the ground that it violated the law of 
the Church in modifying the sentence of the lower court without 
any modification of the finding.” 

Your Committee is of the opinion that the decision of the 


Finding of 
Committee 


10 Journal, 1900, pp. 298, 455, 456. 

11 See Part II, p. 262. 



DECISIONS OF 1900 


87 


Judicial Conference was in harmony with the law in the case, 
and recommends that it be affirmed. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 12 

Report No. 9 

CONTROL OF VERDICT IN TRIAL 

A complaint has been made that a sealed verdict in the case 
of C. E. Cline, a member of Oregon Annual Conference, had 
been lodged with the Secretary of the said Conference; that it 
had been returned by the said Secretary to the Chairman of 
the Select Number; and that this action was irregular and 
illegal. 

Your Committee is not in possession of full information as 
to the circumstances in this matter. That which it has is wholly 
ex parte, and it is therefore not able to pronounce any judicial 
opinion in the case. We are nevertheless of the opinion that 
until a verdict is formally presented to the Annual Conference 
it is in the control of the Select Number. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 13 

Report No. 10 

AMENDMENT OF PARAGRAPH REGARDING APPEAL 

No such report is found in the Journal of the General Con¬ 
ference of 1900. 14 

Report No. 11 

CASE SUBMITTED SUPPOSITITIOUS 

This report is omitted from the Journal of the General Con¬ 
ference of 1900. 15 

Report No. 12 

STATUS OF EXPELLED MINISTER PENDING APPEAL 

In the matter of F. F. Passmore, your Committee finds said 
Passmore was tried before a Select Number of the Colorado 
Conference upon the charge of defamation of character, and 
that he was by said Conference expelled from the ministry, 
but not from the membership of the Church. His appeal from 
the action of the Conference came before a Judicial Conference, 
held at Omaha, December 15, 1896. Upon hearing, counsel for 
the Church claim: 

1. That said Passmore had forfeited his right of appeal by 

12 Journal , 1900, pp. 298, 456. 

13 Ibid ., pp. 298, 456. 

14 See Part II, p. 263. 

16 See Part II, p. 263. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 



88 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


continuing to preach after he had been duly expelled from the 
ministry. 

2. Contempt in the publication of sundry defamatory articles 
named. 

Upon motion, duly seconded, the Judicial Conference declined 
to entertain the appeal of said Passmore, for reasons above stated. 
Counsel for the accused entered objections. 

Afterward, to wit, in February, 1898, said Passmore was tried 
before a committee of Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church, of 
Denver, Colo., of which church he was at the time a member, 
upon the charge of defamation, and upon the further charge of 
insubordination. The specification under the charge of in¬ 
subordination set forth that said Passmore claims to be an 
ordained minister, and to have authority as such to marry people, 
baptize, and administer the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, 
and that he did at given times and places perform such acts as 
an ordained minister. 

The committee found said Passmore to be guilty, and ex¬ 
pelled him from the Church. An appeal was taken to the 
Quarterly Conference, which body, after a careful examination, 
affirmed the judgment of the committee. 

Counsel for the defendant gave notice of an appeal. Both in 
the trial of Passmore before the Annual Conference and in the 
trial before the Committee of Trinity Church counsel for the 
defendant claimed that there was no* specific prohibition in the 
Discipline forbidding an expelled minister from exercising his 
ministerial function pending an appeal; that the taking of an 
appeal vacated the judgment pending the appeal. He further 
claimed that sundry evidence was immaterial, and that undue 
influence was used in the trial before the Trinity Church Com¬ 
mittee. The record does not sustain the position of counsel as 
to these last-named points. 

The above points were submitted to Bishop Mallalieu, and 
upon August 30, 1898, he decided the same in terms as follows: 

1. The chairman presiding at the appeal of Passmore ruled 
properly in admitting all the evidence offered at the trial. 

2. A suspended preacher has no right, much less has an 
expelled preacher any right, to exercise any ministerial func¬ 
tions until his legal disabilities have been removed. 

Paragraph 222, Section 3, of the Discipline provides that a 
minister suspected of a crime may be suspended until the meet¬ 
ing of his Conference. 

Section 270 also provides that when a case is remanded from a 
Judicial Conference for retrial the preacher shall not thereby be 
authorized to resume his ministerial functions. While the 
Church has been thus careful in the cases named, we think it is 
evident that it is the intention of the Church that an expelled 


DECISIONS OF 1900 


89 


minister should not exercise ministerial functions after expul¬ 
sion and pending an appeal. 

An appeal does not vacate a judgment in the sense suggested 
by counsel for defendant. 

Your Committee therefore recommends that the decision of 
Bishop Mallalieu be affirmed as the law in the case. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 16 

Report No. 13 

RECOMMENDATION FOR RECEPTION ON TRIAL—NON-ACTION 

The Rev. W. C. Burdick, in a memorial which is the only 
paper before us, asks this Conference to defend the law and his 
rights under his statement of facts, which is as follows: 

He was duly recommended by the Quarterly Conference for 
admission on trial into an Annual Conference. The Presiding 
Elder of the Quarterly Conference neglected and, on request, 
refused to furnish a certificate of such action, and refused to 
present the same to the Annual Conference. This action being 
submitted to two Bishops (whether by due process or otherwise 
does not appear), they held the memorialist had no redress. 

Without passing upon the legality of the action of the Presid¬ 
ing Elder, this case is not before us in such state as to warrant 
action by this Conference. It is only a memorial purely ex 
parte, having no appellate feature, such as contemplated either 
in Paragraph 273 or in Paragraph 271 of the Discipline. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 17 

Report No. 14 

PRESIDING ELDER AS BOTH JUDGE AND COUNSEL—CASE REMANDED 

Charles W. Price, a member of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church on Roseville Circuit, Zanesville District, Ohio Annual 
Conference, was tried before a Committee on a charge of “im¬ 
moral conduct,” and was found guilty and expelled from the 
Church. The defendant appealed to the Quarterly Conference; 
the Quarterly Conference (J. T. Miller, Presiding Elder, in the 
chair) sustained the findings of the Committee. The defendant 
appealed from the rulings of the Presiding Elder to the Bishop 
presiding at the next session of the Ohio Annual Conference. 
The Bishop sustained the rulings. The defendant appealed 
from the decision of the Bishop to the General Conference in 
1896. The General Conference reversed the decision of the 
Bishop, and remanded the case to the Quarterly Conference for 
a new tr ial. A change of venue was granted. The case was 

16 Journal , 1900, pp. 298, 456-458. 

17 Ibid ., pp. 298, 458. 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 



90 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


transferred to another Conference for trial. The trial was had, 
the said J. T. Miller, Presiding Elder, in the chair. At this 
second trial the finding of the Committee was sustained, and the 
defendant, Price, appealed from certain rulings therein to the 
Bishop who presided at the next session of the Ohio Annual 
Conference. 

For our purposes, we need only dwell upon the fourth excep¬ 
tion and in ruling thereon, which are as follows: 

Exception 4. That the said Quarterly Conference by having 
the said Presiding Elder as its presiding officer at the trial— 
he having once been attorney for the respondent and against 
the appellant in the case—was an illegal body for the trial of 
the said Price, under the laws of the Church. 

The Bishop ruled that the plea of the appellant, that the 
said J. T. Miller, Presiding Elder, was incompetent to sit as 
President of said Quarterly Conference, by reason of having 
acted as counsel for the Church in the trial of the case in a 
previous hearing, was not well taken; for the reason that it does 
not appear that the said Miller was ever employed as counsel 
for the Church in the case, or ever acted as counsel, or was ever 
present at the hearing of the case, when the said Price was 
tried and the record was made which was passed upon by the 
Quarterly Conference over which said Miller presided. That 
the allegation that the said. Miller had acted as counsel in the 
case was not sustained; as the only sense in which the said 
Miller acted as counsel for the Church was in regularly and 
lawfully defending his own rulings in the Quarterly Conference, 
upon the appeal taken therefrom to the Bishop presiding at the 
Annual Conference next ensuing; that such defense of his rul¬ 
ing was not in any wise the act or function of a counsel, but the 
regular act of a Presiding Elder. That it did not tend neces¬ 
sarily to bias the Presiding Elder’s mind as to the rights of the 
appellant or the merits of the case; inasmuch as the hearing 
before the former Bishop did not involve the merits, but related 
solely to the legality of the rulings of the said Miller as 
Presiding Elder in the Quarterly Conference. 

From this ruling of the Bishop, Price appealed to this Gen¬ 
eral Conference. 

The Committee has given much consideration to this case 
because of the great importance involved. 

The ruling of the Bishop affirms that J. T. Miller, Presiding 
Elder, who presided at the first trial, before the Quarterly 
Conference, as a judge, and who upon appeal to the Bishop ap¬ 
peared as counsel and argued the case for the Church, and 
against Price, the defendant, was competent to sit as judge and 
presiding officer of the second Quarterly Conference, in the case 
when remanded for the trial. 

To this proposition we are unable to give our assent. The 


DECISIONS OF 1900 


91 


records of the case show that on September 29, 1892, before the 
Bishop, J. T. Miller appeared and argued the case as counsel 
for the Church, and signed his name to the record “as attorney 
for the Church before the Bishop.” By the records, which alone 
we may consider, the said J. T. Miller appears in the first trial 
of the defendant for the Quarterly Conference as presiding 
officer and judge; on the appeal to the Bishop he appears as 
counsel and attorney for the Church; then when the case was 
returned he again appears as presiding officer and judge, at the 
second trial before the Quarterly Conference. 

It is an elementary principle of law and justice, prevailing in 
all civilized countries, that the judicial tribunal before which 
any person is tried shall be impartial without leaning or bias. 
If the judge has made himself a party either to the prosecution 
or defense, he is disqualified to sit. That one may act as judge 
first, next become an attorney or counsel in the same case for 
one of the parties, either on the side of mere law or on the side 
of facts merely, and then, when he is reversed on the law, may 
drop his robe as counsel and sit as judge in the same case again, 
is at war with all the traditions of our race, and would seem to be 
a mere travesty of justice. We most emphatically dissent from 
such a position, and conclude that the ruling was wrong, should 
be reversed, and the case remanded to the Quarterly Conference 
for a new trial. 

Read and adopted, May 28. 18 

Of the seven reports adopted by the General Conference 
of 1900 , it is a noteworthy fact that six had to do with 
trials, expulsion, or the finding of a Judicial Conference. It 
seems a reversion to the practice of earlier General Con¬ 
ferences, when appeals were so constant. Yet the guarantee 
of the Fifth Restrictive Rule, which may not be repealed, 
had thus a new illustration. 


Conference 

action 


18 Journal , 1900, pp. 319, 458-460. 



XII 


Designation 
of Committee 


DECISIONS OF 1904 


W ITH inconsiderable verbal modifications the pro¬ 
visions of 1896 and 1900, as to the Committee on 
Judiciary, were again repeated at the General Con¬ 
ference of 1904 in Los Angeles. On the first day of the 
session, W. F. McDowell offered the following resolution, 
which was adopted: 

Resolved, That there shall be a Committee, to be called the 
Committee on Judiciary, to which shall be referred all appeals 
from Conferences, from individual ministers or members of the 
Church, records of Judicial Conferences, and all other ques¬ 
tions which may be referred to it by the General Conference. 
This Committee shall consist of one delegate from each General 
Conference District and three delegates at large. Said members 
shall be nominated by the Bishops and confirmed by the Gen¬ 
eral Conference. 1 


Members of the Committee. —As designated by the Gen¬ 
eral Conference Districts and the Board of Bishops, the fol¬ 
lowing constituted the Committee on Judiciary for 1904: 


District 

1. R. F. Raymond. 

2. C. Z. Lincoln. 

3. S. L. Beiler. 

4. W. W. Evans. 

5. H. L. Sibley. 

6. R. J. Cooke. 

7. C. U. Wade. 

At large: 


District 

8. G. W. Pratt. 

9. Robert Forbes. 

10. G. I. Wright. 

11. D. D. Akin. 

12. L. G. Adkinson. 

13. A. J. Bucher. 

14. W. S. Harrington. 2 
C. W. Smith. 


C. W. Smith served as Chairman of the Committee, and 
H. L. Sibley as Secretary. 

Reports of the Committee. —The following twenty re¬ 
ports were offered by the Committee, and received such con¬ 
sideration as is indicated in the succeeding pages of the 
present Section: 

1 Journal , 1904, p. 165. 

8 Ibid., pp. 100, 210. 

92 



DECISIONS OF 1904 


93 


Report No. 1 

OKLAHOMA DELEGATES 

On the paper referred to the Committee on Judiciary respect¬ 
ing the admission of a reserve delegate from the Oklahoma An¬ 
nual Conference, and also a reserve delegate from the Oklahoma 
Lay Electoral Conference, as delegates to this General Con¬ 
ference, your Committee reports: 

The presentation of the case shows: 

1. That on the day set apart for the election of delegates by 
the said Annual and Lay Electoral Conferences, respectively, 
the number of members on the roll of the Oklahoma Annual 
Conference entitled each of these said Conferences to two 
delegates. 

2. That two delegates were elected by the Annual Conference, 
and two reserve delegates. 

3. That the Lay Electoral Conference elected two delegates, 
and then adjourned sine die. 

4. That, subsequently to said elections, and prior to the 
final adjournment of the Annual Conference, by readmissions 
and transfers thereinto, the membership on the roll of said An¬ 
nual Conference was increased to a number which would have 
entitled said Conference to three delegates to the General Con¬ 
ference, had such transfers and readmissions been made prior 
to said election. 

5. That, in the absence of information respecting the non¬ 
counting and nonvoting, in the respective Conferences from 
which they were transferred, of some of the said transferred 
members, and inasmuch as the said Lay Electoral Conference 
had then finally adjourned, on the suggestion of the Bishop 
presiding the said Annual Conference did not order nor hold 
an election for a third delegate. 

The claim is now made that a vacancy exists in the delegations, 
respectively, of the Oklahoma Annual and Lay Electoral Con¬ 
ferences, and that the first reserve delegate from each of these 
Conferences is entitled to a seat in this General Conference. 

Your Committee is of the opinion that as the said Annual 
and Lay Electoral Conferences, respectively, failed to elect a 
third delegate, the said claim is not well founded, and that the 
said reserve delegates are not entitled to admission to member¬ 
ship in this General Conference. 

Presented and adopted, May ll. 3 

Report No. 2 

SOUTH JAPAN MISSION DELEGATES 

The Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred the 
resolution offered by A. B. Leonard to admit to seats in the 

* Journal, 1904, pp. 268, 509, 510. 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 



94 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


General Conference the delegates from the South Japan Mis¬ 
sion Conference^ respectfully reports: 

The South Japan Mission Conference is described in Para¬ 
graph 440, Section 10, of the Discipline, and it belongs to the 
class of Mission Conferences included in Paragraph 86. 

This Conference now has a membership of twenty-six, one 
more than the number required for an Annual Conference; and, 
if that Conference had been organized as an Annual Confer¬ 
ence, it would have been entitled to representation in this 
General Conference. 

This Mission Conference elected provisional ministerial, lay, 
and reserve delegates to this General Conference, and they now 
ask to be admitted to seats in the Conference. 

By the Constitution of 1900 (Appendix, Paragraph 35, 
Articles II and III, Part II), only Annual Conferences and Lay 
Electoral Conferences connected therewith are entitled to 
representation in the General Conference. By Paragraph 86 of 
the Discipline a Mission Conference is vested with many of the 
powers possessed by an Annual Conference, but it is there 
expressly declared that a Mission Conference “shall not elect 
delegates to the General Conference nor vote on constitutional 
changes.” 

It seems clear that until the South Japan Mission Conference 
is organized as an Annual Conference it cannot be represented 
in the General Conference. 

As the matter now stands, we are of the opinion that the 
provisional delegates chosen by this Mission Conference cannot 
be admitted as members of this General Conference. 

Presented and adopted, May 12. 4 

Repoet No. 3 

DISCIPLINARY CHANGES 

We recommend the adoption of the following: 

Amend Paragraph 214 by inserting after the words “func¬ 
tions of his office,” in the fourth line from the end, the words 
“depose him from the ministry”; so that the entire sentence 
shall read: 

“And the said Judicial Conference shall have full power to 
try the accused Bishop, and to suspend him from the functions 
of his office, depose him from the ministry, or expel him from 
the Church, as they may deem his offense requires.” 

Amend Paragraph 218 by striking out of the first two lines 
the words, “In case the alleged immorality or imprudence has 
been committed,” and insert instead the words to make the 
paragraph read: 

“When it is alleged that an immorality or imprudence has 

4 Journal, 1904, pp. 279, 510, 511. 



DECISIONS OF 1904 


95 


been committed without the bounds of any District, the Presid¬ 
ing Elder within the bounds of whose District the Bishop re¬ 
sides shall proceed as hereinbefore specified.” 

Amend Paragraph 222, Section 1, by striking out of the 
seventh line the word “verdict” and insert therefor the word 
“judgment”; and in the ninth line instead of the words “and 
evidence” insert the words “evidence, and judgment”; so that 
the sentence shall read: 

“He shall preside throughout the proceedings, and shall 
certify and declare the judgment of the Committee; and he shall 
cause a correct record of the charges, specifications, proceedings, 
evidence, and judgment in the investigation to be kept and 
transmitted to the Annual Conference.” 

Amend Section 2, Paragraph 222, by striking out from the 
third and fourth lines the words “if they judge it necessary,” 
and insert instead the words “if they deem an investigation 
necessary”; so that it shall read: 

“But if the accused be a Presiding Elder, three of the senior 
ministers of his District shall inquire into the character of the 
report, and, if they deem an investigation necessary, they shall 
call in the Presiding Elder of any adjoining District,” etc. 

Amend Paragraph 230, Section 3, by inserting in the third 
line from the end of the first sentence, after the words “deliver 
up to him,” the word “therewith”; so that the last clause of the 
sentence, referring to the Select Number, shall read: 

“And they shall make a faithful report in writing of all their 
proceedings duly subscribed by the President and Secretary of 
thfc Select Number to the Secretary of the Conference and 
deliver up to him therewith the bill of charges, the evidence 
taken, and the decision rendered, with all other documents 
brought into the trial.” 

To the second sentence of Section 3, Paragraph 230, add this 
clause: “and the Conference shall determine whether the case 
seems to be of such gravity as to require that the minister be 
left without appointment until the investigation be held”; so 
that the sentence shall read: 

“But the Annual Conference may, when a case cannot be 
tried during the session for want of testimony, refer it to one 
of the Presiding Elders, who shall proceed as directed in *[f 222, 

§ 1; and the Conference shall determine whether the case seems 
to be of such gravity as to require that the minister be left 
without appointment until the investigation be held.” 

Amend Paragraph 233 by adding at the close the words, “at 
the time of his deposition”; so that the Paragraph shall read: 

“In case any member of an Annual Conference be deposed 
from the ministry without being expelled from the Church, he 
shall have his membership in the church where he resides at the 
time of his deposition.” 


Finding of 
Committee 


96 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


Under Paragraph 241 insert in small type the following 
note, as is done now under Paragraph 197: 

“Note.—For holding religious services within a charge 
against the will of its pastor, see 223.” 

Amend Paragraph 268 by inserting in the second line after 
the words “Judicial Conference” the words “after the charges, 
findings, and evidence have been read”; so that it shall read: 

“In all cases where an appeal is made and admitted by the 
Judicial Conference, after the charges, findings, and evidence 
have been read, the appellant shall state,” etc. 

In Paragraph 262 change “seven” to “five” as the number of 
the Triers of Appeals; so that the paragraph shall read: 

“The several Annual Conferences shall, at each session, select 
five Elders, men of experience and sound judgment in the affairs 
of the Church, who shall be known as triers of appeals.” 

In Paragraph 264 change “thirteen” to “eleven” as the 
quorum of a Judicial Conference; so that it shall read: 

“The appellant shall have the right of peremptory challenge, 
yet so that the Triers of Appeals present, and ready to proceed 
with the hearing, shall not fall below eleven, which number shall 
be required for a quorum.” 

Presented, May 14, and adopted, May 28. 5 

Report No. 4 

appeal; restoration to roll 

On the memorial of the California Conference respecting the 
case of Rev. W. C. Damon, your Committee reports: 

First, It appears that for more than twenty years the said 
Damon was a member and Elder in the said Conference, dur¬ 
ing most of which time he was a professor in the Napa College, 
within the bounds of the said Conference; that when the said 
college closed he was supposed to have been transferred to the 
Holston Annual Conference, and his name was omitted from 
the roll of the California Conference. This, it has lately been 
found, was an error, and the omission of his name from the 
roll unwarranted. After an interval of ten years or more* 
during which time the said Damon did not report to said Con¬ 
ference, he made application for the restoration of his name 
to the Conference roll. At its recent session in September, 
1903, said Conference appointed a Committee to inquire into his 
life and character during the interval stated, and to memorialize 
the General Conference for direction in the case. That Com¬ 
mittee made the inquiry, as directed, and found that during 
the time involved the said Damon was teaching in Tennessee, 
and was also employed by the national government in Washing- 

6 Journal, pp. 299, 407, 511, 512. 



DECISIONS OF 1904 


97 


ton, D. C., and in the Philippine Islands. The Committee also 
found and reported that during this interval the life and conduct 
of the said Damon have been in keeping with his profession as a 
Christian man, and that he has not failed in Christian duty, 
and finally it unhesitatingly affirms its confidence in him as a 
Christian minister. 

Second, In view of the foregoing facts, this Committee finds 
that the said California Conference was in fault in omitting the 
name of the said W. C. Damon from its roll; that the said 
brother also was in fault in not annually reporting to his said 
Conference, and that during said interval the said W. C. Damon, 
in law, remained and so still is a member of the said California 
Conference. 

Presented and adopted, May 16. 6 

Report No. 5 

appeal; vote of bishop in annual conference 

In the matter of the appeal of George L. Taylor against 
the ruling and action of Bishop C. C. McCabe, in the Central 
Illinois Conference, it appears that one F. H. Cumming had 
been regularly tried by the said Conference, convicted, and 
expelled from the ministry and membership of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church; that subsequently certain members of the 
Pontiac Quarterly Conference petitioned the said Annual Con¬ 
ference to allow the said Cumming to again unite with the 
Church; that when a motion was made in the said Conference 
to grant this permission objection was made to its submis¬ 
sion on the ground that it involved a violation of the law of the 
Church, Cumming not having complied with the requirements 
of Paragraph 234 of the Discipline , which says: “After a min¬ 
ister shall have been regularly tried and expelled, he shall have 
no privilege of society or sacraments in our Church without 
contrition, reformation, and confession satisfactory to the Con¬ 
ference from which he was expelled”; that, notwithstanding this 
objection, the question was submitted to a vote which resulted 
in a tie, whereupon the Bishop gave the casting vote in the 
affirmative and declared the motion carried; that the said Cum¬ 
ming has taken advantage of this alleged permission to secure 
membership in the Church. 

On these admitted facts we report: 

First, That the above question should not have been sub¬ 
mitted to the Conference, as it involved a violation of the law 
of the Church. 

Second, That the Bishop erred in voting in the case, as the 
Bishops are not members of the Annual Conference and have no 
right to vote therein under any circumstances. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


8 Journal, 1904, pp. 304, 512, 513. 



98 EEPOETS OF THE JUDICIAEY COMMITTEE 


Third, That, as the said F. H. Cumming had not complied 
with the requirements of the Discipline touching confession, 
contrition, and reformation, and as the action by which he 
claimed the right to again seek membership in the Church was 
illegal, we find that the membership he has thus secured is 
null and void. 

Conference Presented and adopted, May 16. 7 

action 1 7 J 

Eeport No. 6 

DISTRICTED EPISCOPACY 

rcferr i0n I* Your Committee, to whom by resolution of this body was 

referred the question of the constitutionality “of assigning 
General Superintendents to particular sections or districts for 
periods of four years, with the possibility of continuing said 
General Superintendents in said districts for a longer period/’ 
beg leave to report that they have endeavored to give this sub¬ 
ject the serious and deliberate consideration which its importance 
demands. 

Committee The resolution evidently contemplates a territorial division of 

our Church work, for the purposes of episcopal supervision, to 
each part of which a General Superintendent shall be assigned, 
and within which, also, his itinerant labors must be confined. 
The proposition, therefore, upon which we are called upon to 
pass is whether, under our organic law, such a limitation of 
their fields of itineracy, legally, can be imposed upon the 
Board of Active Bishops. 

II. The Methodist Episcopal Church was organized in 1784. 
An essential feature of its polity was what has been styled a 
“moderate Episcopacy.” This took the form and became 
familiar as a system of itinerant general superintendency com¬ 
mensurate with the entire territory of the Church. No legisla¬ 
tion then prescribed this kind of itineracy. This was treated 
as inhering in and belonging to the office of Bishop. By their 
Notes on the Discipline, written by request of the General Con¬ 
ference of 1796, Bishops Coke and Asbury quite clearly bring 
this out. In discussing our form of episcopacy, and particularly 
its itinerant features, after showing that Timothy and Titus 
“were traveling Bishops,” they add: “Whatever excellencies 
other plans may have, this”—the Methodist—“is the primitive 
apostolic plan.” 

The principle that the obligation of general itineracy under 
our plan attaches to the office of Bishop also is illustrated and 
made manifest by an enactment of the organizing Conference 
of 1784. This provided a penalty against any General Super¬ 
intendent who, “without the consent of the Conference,” should 
“cease from traveling at large among the people.” As there 


7 Journal , 1904, pp. 304, 513, 514. 



DECISIONS OF 1904 


99 


was then no Disciplinary law imposing this duty, the only basis 
of the penal act, evidently, is the proposition that the obliga¬ 
tion was inherent in our plan of episcopacy; in which event, so 
long as this plan is preserved, general itineracy is a duty of 
the Bishops. 

Moreover, as we think, this “plan” presented an antithesis, 
deliberately worked out and intended, to the diocesan or district 
systems included in the episcopates of the English and Roman 
Catholic Churches. Itinerant general superintendency was a 
distinctive and characteristic feature of Methodist episcopacy, 
as a localized supervision is of theirs. 

III. This "plan” continued without essential changes down 
to 1808, although, in virtue of its sovereign power in our 
ecclesiastical system, the General Conference, at or prior to 
that time, might have modified or abolished it. By the session 
of that year, however, a delegated Conference was created, under 
the limitations of constitutional government. This then familiar 
"plan” of itinerant general superintendency, as well as epis¬ 
copacy, was before the sovereign Conference which framed our 
Constitution, and received the consideration of that body. The 
members well knew its history and operation, and also the con¬ 
catenated duties and powers that attached to and by force, both 
of law and custom, were settled incidents of this plan. Under 
these circumstances what was done ? Without the slightest 
alteration in its structure, or the least modification of its prac¬ 
tice, the system was made an integral part of our polity, by a 
constitutional provision, still in the organic law, which is as 
follows: "The General Conference shall not change nor alter 
any part or rule of our government so as to do away episcopacy, 
nor destroy the plan of our itinerant general superin tendency.” 

IV. In the light of the foregoing history, and for the pur¬ 
poses of the question submitted to our determination, we think 
this clause from the fundamental law sufficiently defines the 
"plan” which the General Conference is debarred from destroy¬ 
ing. It is and ever has been the Methodist, as against all other 
plans of episcopal supervision—as the Constitution states, "our” 
plan. So also it was and is a plan of "itinerant general super¬ 
intendency”—not local, but ever coextensive with the widening 
spread and work of the Church. This much, assuredly, is clear 
and indisputable. Such, then, being the "plan,” which the 
Constitution so far defines and protects, how stands the regula¬ 
tion contemplated by the resolution with respect to it ? 

As we have seen this looks to localizing, by territorial limita¬ 
tion, the itinerant superintendency of the Bishops—confining 
them for four years or more to districts which the Conference 
shall mark out. The simple statement of the proposition, in 
view of what has been shown, renders its conflict with the organic 
law apparent. By its operation, if put in force, the Bishops 


Finding of 
Committee 



100 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


would at once be made local superintendents—exercising their 
powers of supervision over what in other systems is known as 
a diocese. This seems so clear as to preclude debate, yet it be¬ 
comes, as we conceive, decisive of the question before us. For, 
if the Conference thus may individualize and restrict the field 
of episcopal work during one quadrennium, such action could be 
repeated session after session. Consequently, by that process, 
the labors of our General Superintendents might be wholly 
localized—the character of their itineracy radically changed, at 
the will of this body—thus entirely destroying the constitutional 
plan and the kind of episcopacy established by the fathers. Nor 
is a limitation upon their itinerant general superintendency for 
a single quadrennium less repugnant to the organic law. The 
obvious reason for this is that such a restriction upon their 
traveling at large among the people would totally destroy the 
plan during the period named; and argument hardly can be 
needed to show that this body is invested with no more power 
to trench upon the protection which the Constitution affords to 
this plan for four years than for forty. 

Y. The act of 1784, to which reference was made, implies 
a duty, inhering in our system of general superintendency, of 
traveling "at large among the people.” For nearly six score 
years also this duty has been recognized and performed by our 
Bishops. The practice has been uniform, the custom unbroken. 
This long and settled usage defines, and so puts beyond reason¬ 
able doubt, what is meant in our organic law by "itinerant gen¬ 
eral superintendency,” if that ever was open to question. More¬ 
over, up to this time our Bishops and Conferences have been 
at one upon that subject. By more than a century of practical 
construction, therefore, the import of this constitutional "plan” 
has been wrought into our history—written in action of un¬ 
mistakable character along its whole course. We deem it of 
importance to bring these circumstances to the attention of the 
Conference. In the civil realm, it is well settled that a long 
period of practical construction by legislative and executive 
departments, charged with the duty of administering a consti¬ 
tutional provision, will be adopted by the courts unless mani¬ 
festly repugnant to the purposes intended by the framers of 
the Constitution. On this principle, as seems clear to us, the 
practical construction applied since the Restrictive Rule in 
question was adopted should be regarded as conclusive against 
the powers of the General Conference to distribute the work of 
the Bishops by districts, instead of leaving them to travel at 
large, were the proposition otherwise in doubt. 

VI. None will fail to observe, as we trust, that the conclu¬ 
sions reached are grounded upon the wide difference between 
the powers of the General Conference before and since 1808. 
As has been stated, up to the close of the session in that year 


DECISIONS OF 1904 


101 


the governing body was sovereign and supreme. Hence, in their 
Notes on the Discipline, written 1796-1800, Bishops Coke and 
Asbury, with strict accuracy, could say that our Bishops were 
“entirely dependent on the General Conference.” But upon 
the establishment of a constitutional system of Church govern¬ 
ment, in 1808, this condition was changed. The “plan” of 
“our itinerant general superintendency,” which previously to 
that time had been at the mercy of the General Conference, 
by the Third Restrictive Rule was put beyond the power of 
the delegated Conference to destroy. Therefore, so far as 
respects their duties and rights by virtue of that plan, the 
Episcopal Board, during active service and good behavior, no 
longer are dependent upon the Conference. In these particulars, 
its members and their office alike are under the aegis of the 
organic law, which our governing body is powerless to change 
or override. 

VII. Equally, then, by the terms of the Constitution and 
the cogent force of a practical construction of its provisions, 
uniform, and as old as the instrument itself, we feel constrained 
to say that this body is debarred from taking the action con¬ 
templated by the resolution referred to us. In our opinion, such 
a regulation would necessarily operate to “destroy” the “plan of 
our itinerant general superintendency,” whether the limit be for 
four years or for a longer period. 

(Substitute offered) 

Resolved, That, as to the assignment of General Superintend¬ 
ents by the General Conference to special sections or districts 
in the United States for a quadrennium, there is nothing in 
the Constitution of the Church to prevent the exercise of such 
power by the General Conference, but that it is merely a matter 
of expediency to be determined according to the judgment of 
the General Conference. 

Order of Day; substitute lost; adopted, May 17. 8 

Report No. 7 
appeal; illegal expulsion 

In the matter of the appeal of Si Sik-ding from the action of 
the Hinghwa Mission Conference, it appears that the appellant 
was expelled from the said Conference on the second day of 
its annual session, in his absence, and when no copy of the 
charges had been given him. The appellant alleges that he did 
not know that he was to be tried at that time, while, on the 
other hand, it is affirmed that he had been told that charges 
would be preferred against him. In view of these facts, we are 
of the opinion that “due notice” had not been given the appel- 

8 Journal, 1904, pp. 304, 315, 514-517. 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 



102 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


lant; that he should have had a copy of the charges served on 
him; that the trial, held on the second day of a session which 
lasted five days, was hasty; that the Conference was not justi¬ 
fied in proceeding in the absence of the accused under these cir¬ 
cumstances; and that, therefore, he was unjustly and illegally 
expelled, and that he is still a member in the Hinghwa Mis¬ 
sion Conference. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 9 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Report No. 8 

appeal; reinstatement without contrition 

The Committee on Judiciary, to which were referred the 
memorials in the case of David W. Ross, reports: 

1. That the alleged facts are that David W. Ross, an Elder in 
the Kansas Conference, in 1895 did “withdraw under com¬ 
plaints” of immorality from the ministry and membership of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, by consent of the Kansas Con¬ 
ference, and surrendered thereto his credentials. 

2. That the said David W. Ross did soon after join the 
Church in Oklahoma, and did by successive steps come to the 
point of being received into full membership in the Oklahoma 
Conference and of being elected to Deacon’s orders; that the 
said David W. Ross and the Oklahoma Conference did more 
than once ask the Kansas Conference to restore the credentials 
of the said David W. Ross, that he might be a member in orders 
in the Oklahoma Conference, and the Kansas Conference did 
by unanimous vote refuse the requests. Thereupon the Okla¬ 
homa Conference did elect David W. Ross to full membership 
in said Conference and to Deacon’s orders, and he was ordained 
by Bishop Warren at the 1900 session of the Oklahoma Con¬ 
ference. 

3. The questions raised by the memorials are (1) the legality 
of the election of David W. Ross to membership in the Okla¬ 
homa Conference, and hence his ministerial standing; (2) the 
legality of the election of David W. Ross to Deacon’s orders by 
the Oklahoma Conference, and of his ordination. 

4. Your Committee finds that the law covering this case at 
all points is in 234 and 235 of the Discipline, which pro¬ 
vide that the relation to the Church of a minister who has 
“withdrawn under complaint” is the same as that of a minister 
who has been expelled, namely, that he “shall have no privileges 
of society or sacraments in our Church without contrition, 
reformation, and confession satisfactory to the Conference from 
which he was expelled.” 

It is plain to your Committee that under this law, until the 


9 Journal , 1904, pp. 407, 517, 518. 



DECISIONS OF 1904 


103 


Kansas Conference is satisfied with the contrition, reformation, 
and confession of David W. Ross he can have no privileges of 
society or sacraments in our Church; that hence he cannot be 
received legally into any Conference, nor can he be elected to 
orders. The Bishop presiding should not have entertained the 
motion in either case. The action of the Oklahoma Confer¬ 
ence in each case was illegal; the ordination of David W. Ross 
was illegal; and the membership in the Oklahoma Conference 
and the Deacon’s orders thus obtained by David W. Ross are 
each null and void. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 10 

Report No. 9 

ARE THE PHILIPPINES A FOREIGN FIELD? 

To your Committee has been referred by the General Con¬ 
ference the question whether the Philippine Islands can, in 
view of their present relation to the United States, be classed as 
a foreign mission and placed under the jurisdiction of a Mis¬ 
sionary Bishop. The answer to this question will turn on the 
construction to be given to the words “foreign missions” as used 
in § 3 of Article X of the Constitution, familiarly known as 
the Third Restrictive Rule. As it seems to us, these words must 
be understood to describe (1) missions in countries foreign to 
the government of the United States, or (2) missions in coun¬ 
tries foreign to the United States in America. We are of the 
opinion that the latter is the sense in which they are employed 
by the framers of this section, and that therefore they refer 
to missions in lands beyond the seas—lands foreign to our 
shores. 

But we are now confronted by new conditions. The govern¬ 
ment of the United States has crossed the seas and has taken 
possession of lands on the other side of the globe. Before such 
possession was taken all must agree that missions established 
there would have been naturally classed as “foreign missions.” 
Now, does the fact that our government has secured possession 
and established jurisdiction there so change the situation that 
a mission there must for this reason cease to be a “foreign 
mission” and become a home mission? We think not. The 
power to classify its missions and direct in their administration 
is in the Methodist Episcopal Church, and not in the govern¬ 
ment of the United States. If we hold that the extension of 
the jurisdiction of our government to an island beyond the seas 
so changes our relation to it as a Church that it cannot be made 
a “foreign mission,” then we admit that the government of the 
United States has power to change the classification of our 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


10 Journal , 1904, pp. 407, 518, 519. 



104 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Minority 

Report 


missions, overturn the missionary policy therein, and even to 
unfrock our Missionary Bishops. To such a doctrine we can¬ 
not assent. In the United States in America it is clear that 
under the Restrictive Rule there can be no “foreign missions”; 
but elsewhere the General Conference, exercising for this purpose 
the sovereign authority of the Church, may classify its missions 
as it deems best, and may administer them at its pleasure. 
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the General Conference 
has the power to declare the Philippine Islands a “foreign 
mission,” and to elect therefor a Missionary Bishop. 

(Minority Report) 

With reference to the question submitted by you to the Judi¬ 
ciary Committee on last Friday, whether territory belonging 
to the United States can be placed under a Missionary Bishop, 
after careful consideration of the question the undersigned 
would respectfully report as follows: 

Prior to 1856 the Third Restrictive Rule provided that “the 
General Conference shall not change nor alter any part or rule 
of our government so as to do away with episcopacy, nor de¬ 
stroy the plan of our itinerant general superintendency.” 

The need of Liberia for a missionary superintendent led to 
the amendment of said Restrictive Rule in 1856 by adding 
thereto these words, “but may elect a Missionary Bishop or 
Superintendent for any of our foreign missions, limiting his 
episcopal jurisdiction to the same respectively.” By this amend¬ 
ment it is made lawful to elect a Missionary Bishop for any 
one or more of our foreign missions when the General Confer¬ 
ence may decide it to be necessary, but it is unconstitutional to 
elect a Missionary Bishop for other than a “foreign mission.” 

The answer to your question is to be determined by the defi¬ 
nition properly to be given to the term “foreign mission.” 

The primary meaning of the word “foreign” is, “not of one’s 
country,” and this natural and generally accepted meaning of 
the word ought to be given to it in the constitutional provision, 
unless it is clear that another meaning was intended. It seems 
clear to us, both by the language of the Constitution and by 
the intent of its framers, that the words “foreign mission” 
meant a Mission located in a foreign field. 

Suppose it is claimed that by the constitutional term “foreign 
mission” is meant a Mission to a foreign race, what will follow ? 
If we so decide, and decide that the Caucasian race is not for¬ 
eign, but is our race, then we destroy the authority to have a 
missionary superintendency of the Caucasian peoples in South¬ 
ern Asia. 

Suppose we decide the Negro race to be foreign, so that a 
Mission to them would be a foreign mission, then we make pos¬ 
sible a missionary superintendency within the United States. 
If we decide the Negro race was not to be foreign, then we make 


DECISIONS OF 1904 


105 


unconstitutional a missionary superintendency in Africa or 
Liberia. To suggest these conclusions, especially when we con¬ 
sider that Liberia was the specified field in view and the African 
the people to be benefited by the amended Constitution, for¬ 
bids the idea that by “foreign mission” is meant a Mission to 
a foreign race. 

Some may think that the constitutional term “foreign mis¬ 
sion” means a Mission to people speaking a foreign language. 
If this conclusion obtain, a missionary superintendency of the 
German or Swedish-speaking Mission in the United States is 
lawful, while a missionary superintendency of English-speaking 
people in foreign lands would be prohibited. Who can believe 
that the constitutional term “foreign mission” should be defined 
as meaning a Mission to people not speaking the English lan¬ 
guage? It seems needless to further argue that the constitu¬ 
tional term “foreign mission” should not be defined as having 
primary reference to the character of the people as to race, lan¬ 
guage, or citizenship, for the locality of the field in view is cer¬ 
tainly intended by the term “foreign mission.” 

The Chapter of the Discipline entitled “Missionary Bishops,” 
beginning with Paragraph 179, repeatedly emphasizes the fact 
that missionary superintendency has to do with foreign mission 
fields and with no other. We grant that this legislative inter¬ 
pretation by the General Conference is not conclusive upon the 
constitutional question now raised, but a legislative interpreta¬ 
tion which is made prior to the raising of the question herein 
involved has great weight in determining what had been the 
generally accepted meaning of the constitutional term “foreign 
mission.” 

This view that the words “foreign mission” in the Constitu¬ 
tion have reference to the locality of the field is conceded in the 
opinion of the majority of your Committee. But, conceding 
that the field must be foreign, the question arises, foreign to 
what? The majority say it must either be foreign to the govern¬ 
ment of the United States or foreign to the United States in 
America, but we say that the constitutional term “foreign mis¬ 
sion” must be defined as a Mission located without the country 
or territory of the United States. 

The twenty-third Article of Eeligion is a part of our Con¬ 
stitution, and clearly indicates that the United States of 
America is the country with reference to which the Constitu¬ 
tion classifies a Mission as foreign or home. In the history of 
our Missions we find that a distinction has ever been made by 
classifying Missions without the United States territory as for¬ 
eign, and Missions within our national territory as home Mis¬ 
sions. The only exception thereto is the classifying by the Mis¬ 
sionary Society of our Philippine mission work as foreign. It 
was not intended by amending our Constitution to make an 


Minority 

Report 


106 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Minority 

Report 


exception to the Restrictive Rule which might be modified by 
any possible whim of the Missionary Society, giving them the 
power by classifying Missions to determine that a certain mis¬ 
sion field might or might not be foreign, for the purpose of mis¬ 
sionary superintendence. But it was intended to make mission¬ 
ary superintendence possible only without the territory of the 
United States. Nor do we think our construction makes pos¬ 
sible the unfrocking of Missionary Bishops, for if the Mission, 
when put under missionary superintendence, was without the 
territory of the United States, it would not necessarily follow 
that the annexation of such field by the United States would 
terminate such superintendency. 

To us it seems clear that the constitutional term “foreign 
mission” means a Mission in territory foreign to the United 
States of America, and absurd to say it means a Mission without 
the United States in America. 

In 1856 our Church, by adopting said amendment, was not 
thinking of the possible expansion of the United States be¬ 
yond America, and therefore were not intending to put in their 
amendment the meaning without the United States in America. 
Nor can the construction of our Constitution be controlled by 
the way any other Church classifies its Missions. If the inten¬ 
tion in 1856 was to make possible missionary superintendence 
only without the United States, then that is the present inten¬ 
tion of the amendment without regard to our expanded terri¬ 
tory. 

The only Disciplinary distinctions between Missions are made 
between Missions within the United States and its Territories 
and those within foreign countries, indicating that the national 
boundary had to do with the proper classification of Missions. 
Since the constitutional term “foreign mission” should be de¬ 
fined as meaning a Mission located in territory foreign to our 
country, we hold that “territory belonging to the United States” 
cannot “be placed under a Missionary Bishop.” 

The question of providing a Missionary Bishop for the 
Philippines is involved, and that can be settled by learning the 
relation of the Philippines to the United States. 

In the case of Fourteen Diamond Rings vs. the United 
States, found in 183 United States Supreme Court Report, page 
176, opinion by Chief Justice Fuller, the Court decided, on page 
179, “by the third article of the treaty, Spain ceded to the 
United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, 
and the Philippines thereby ceased to be a foreign country. 
They came under the complete and absolute sovereignty and 
dominion of the United States.” And so, because territory of 
the United States, they also hold that a country is not domestic 
for one purpose and foreign for another. 

The Philippine Islands being a part of the United States at 


DECISIONS OF 1904 


107 


the time the question of putting them under missionary super¬ 
intendence is proposed, we hold that to elect a Missionary 
Bishop for that mission field would be unconstitutional. It 
ought also to be borne in mind that our missionary work fol¬ 
lowed our flag into the Philippines, thus giving a different 
form to the question that would be presented in case our work 
therein had been established prior to their annexation to our 
country. 

Presented, minority report not substituted, adopted, May 24. 11 

Report No. 10 
appeal; trial of member 

A memorial from Mrs. Catherine Evans, a lay member of 
the Church within the bounds of the Central New York Con¬ 
ference, has been referred to your Committee, in which she com¬ 
plains of certain proceedings in the trial of another member of 
the Church. But as Mrs. Evans was not in any way a party 
to the case named the matters are not brought within our juris¬ 
diction, and we dismiss the case on this ground. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 12 

Report No. 11 

RESERVE LAY DELEGATES; LEGALITY OF ELECTION 

A letter of G. H. Faulkner, a layman within the bounds of 
the Indiana Conference, and certain other letters and documents 
have been referred to the Committee on Judiciary from which 
it appears that the Lay Electoral Conference of the Indiana 
Conference elected seven reserve lay delegates and designated 
each as reserve for a certain lay delegate, and we are asked to 
pass upon the legality of such election. As all the lay delegates 
from the said Conference are in their seats, and there is no con¬ 
test, there is no case in which we can render a decision. But 
we venture to add, however, that the answer to the question may 
be found in Section 4 of Article III of the Constitution. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 13 

Report No. 12 

PREACHER ON TRIAL AS PRESIDING ELDER 

The Committee on Judiciary was instructed to consider and 
report whether a Bishop may legally appoint an Elder who is 

11 Journal, 1904, pp. 363-365, 519, 520. 

12 Ibid., pp. 407, 520. 

13 Ibid., pp. 407, 520. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 



108 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


on trial in an Annual Conference to the office of Presiding 
Elder; and we respectfully report that we find nothing in the 
law of the Church to forbid such appointment. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 14 

Report No. 13 

complaint; counsel in trial 

A memorial of William Powick, of the Philadelphia Confer¬ 
ence, complains of certain rulings and actions growing out of 
the preliminary trial of a member of the Central Pennsylvania 
Conference, in which case the said Powick acted as counsel; but, 
as all these matters had their proper place for hearing in the 
trial before the Select Number at the Annual Conference, we 
find nothing on which to act. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 15 

Report No. 14 

CONFERENCE WITH LESS THAN TWENTY-FIVE MEMBERS 

The following action of the Committee on Boundaries was 
referred to the Committee on Judiciary, with instructions to 
report thereon: 

“In view of the constitutional provision which requires twenty- 
five members to organize an Annual Conference, your Committee 
on Boundaries reports that there are several Annual Confer¬ 
ences with less than this number of members, and suggests 
that the matter be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 
for an opinion as to the status of such Conferences under the 
Constitution.” 

In reply, we express the opinion that the status of a legally 
organized Annual Conference is not affected by the fact that its 
membership falls below the number required by the Constitution 
for the organization of an Annual Conference. A duly organ¬ 
ized Annual Conference continues to exist as such and retains 
all the rights and powers thereof until it is dissolved or changed 
by the General Conference. But the General Conference in the 
organization of new Conferences, or in changing the boundaries 
of Conferences, may not so change any existing Conference as 
to reduce its membership below the Constitutional number. 
And we venture to suggest that the General Conference should 
so exercise its undoubted Constitutional powers in this matter as 
to provide that such Annual Conferences as fall below the re¬ 
quired number shall be by consolidation, or otherwise, brought 

u Journal, 1904, pp. 407, 520. 

"Ibid., pp. 407, 520. 



DECISIONS OF 1904 


109 


up to that number, or that they shall be reduced to the status 
of Mission Conferences. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 16 

Report No. 15 

ANNUAL CONFERENCE A CONTINUOUS BODY 

Concerning the question of the continuous character of an 
Annual Conference, referred to this Committee by vote of the 
General Conference, we would respectfully report that Article 
III, Part I, of the Constitution says: 

“The traveling preachers shall be organized by the General 
Conference into Annual Conferences, the sessions of which they 
are required to attend.” 

From this it would appear that an Annual Conference when 
properly organized becomes a legal entity, and continues to 
exist until it ceases by reason of loss of its membership, or it 
is lawfully dissolved. Individual members come in as provided 
by law, and go out under the laws of nature, or of the Church, 
but the Conference itself continues. It has power to adopt rules 
for its government, and rules of order for its annual sessions, 
the same to continue at its pleasure, and to be amended or re¬ 
pealed as it may provide. In short, it is a permanent body, 
and may govern itself accordingly, under the Constitution and 
laws of the Church. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 17 

Report No. 16 

ILLEGAL LICENSE AFTER EXPULSION 

In the memorial of A. 0. Ebright and others, of the South¬ 
west Kansas Conference, it appears that one Granville Lowther 
was regularly tried and expelled from the ministry by that Con¬ 
ference, but not from membership in the Church. The said 
Granville Lowther then transferred his membership to some 
church within the Syracuse District, Central New York Con¬ 
ference, while he continued to reside at Wichita, Kansas. Later, 
the District Conference of that District granted him license to 
preach in his absence. This action is challenged by the mem¬ 
orialists, as being in violation of the law of the Discipline which 
requires the candidate for license to preach to be present for 
examination in doctrine and Discipline. This challenge is here¬ 
by sustained, as Paragraph 197, Section 1, of the Discipline 
says that those who are licensed to preach must be “examined 
in the presence of the Conference on the subject of doctrine and 

16 Journal, 1904, pp. 407, 521. 

"Ibid., pp. 407, 521, 522. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 



110 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Discipline ” We find, therefore, that the said license is illegal 
and void. 

Presented and adopted. May 28. 18 

Report No. 17 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, ERRORS IN CALIFORNIA 

In reviewing the records of the Judicial Conference in the 
case of John D. Hammond, of the California Conference, we 
find that in the trial of this case there were various errors and 
some formal errors, but there seem to be no such errors of law 
as call for a reversal of the findings and judgment therein. 

Adopted, May 28. 19 

Report No. 18 

APPEAL FROM JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 

In the matter of the appeal of John B. Wolfe, coming up 
from a Judicial Conference in Illinois, the Committee has care¬ 
fully reviewed the decisions of questions of law contained in 
the records and documents transmitted to the General Confer¬ 
ence from the Judicial Conference, and we find no serious errors 
therein. 

Adopted, May 28. 20 

Report No. 19 

DECISIONS OF JUDICIAL CONFERENCES 

Your Committee on Judiciary beg leave to report that they 
have carefully reviewed the decisions on questions of law con¬ 
tained in the records and documents transmitted to this Gen¬ 
eral Conference and referred to them from certain Judicial 
Conferences, to wit: 

In the case of S. C. Swallow, of the Central Pennsylvania Con¬ 
ference; in that of F. C. Wright, of the Delaware Conference; 
in that of H. J. P. Peterson, of one of the German Conferences; 
and that of S. D. Starr, of the Oregon Conference, and that we 
find no serious errors of law in any of them. 

Adopted, May 28. 21 

Report No. 20 

VACANCIES IN THE BOOK COMMITTEE 

As to the term during which a member of the Book Com- 
mittee a ppointed to fill a vacancy may serve, your Committee 

18 Journal, 1904, pp. 407, 522. 

19 Ibid., pp. 415, 522. 

20 Ibid., pp. 415, 522. 

"Ibid., pp. 415, 522, 523. 



DECISIONS OF 1904 


111 


reports that Paragraph 420 of the Discipline says: "The Book 
Committee shall during the interval of the General Conference 
have power to fill vacancies occurring in its own body.” In our 
opinion this power is limited to the interval between General 
Conferences; and that the term of the appointee ends at the 
session of the ensuing General Conference. 

Adopted, May 28. 22 

An examination of the preceding twenty reports discloses 
the varied and paramount subjects considered by the Com¬ 
mittee on Judiciary. Eleven of these reports relate to indi¬ 
viduals. Others involve great principles, like the masterly 
discussion of the “Districted Episcopacy” in Report No. 6; 
or the argument in Report No. 15 that the Annual Confer¬ 
ence is a continuous body; or the definition of Report No. 20 
as to the term of service in case of a vacancy in the Book 
Committee. Altogether, the reports sweep a wide field in 
Methodist law and practice. 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


22 Journal, 1904, pp. 415, 523. 



XIII 


Selection of 
Committee 


DECISIONS OF 1908 

T HE Committee on Judiciary, at the General Confer¬ 
ence of 1908 in Baltimore, again consisted of mem¬ 
bers representing the several General Conference Dis¬ 
tricts, with additional members named by the Bishops. By 
motion of the Committee on Rules of Order, the following 
modification of Rule 35 was adopted, regulating the selec¬ 
tion of the Committee: 1 

Amend Rule 35 so that it shall read: 

“For the Committee on the Judiciary the delegates of each 
General Conference District shall nominate one from their own 
number, and the Bishops shall nominate five, making the total 
number nineteen members/’ 2 

Members of the Committee. —The following constituted 
the Judiciary Committee for 1908, the nominees of the 
Board of Bishops being announced by Bishop Walden on the 
fourth day of the session: 

At Large 

W. W. Evans, Central Pennsylvania. 

F. D. Bovard, California. 

C. S. Wing, New York East. 

N. W. Clark, Italy. 

Naphtali Luccock, Saint Louis. 

District District Representatives 

I. C. Z. Lincoln, Troy. 

II. Henry Wade Rogers, New York East. 

III. H. C. Perkins, Wyoming. 

IY. J. C. Nicholson, Baltimore. 

Y. S. M. Bright, Ohio. 

VI. H. C. McWhorter, West Virginia. 

VII. W. W. Lucas, Mississippi. 

VIII. A. R. King, Colorado. 

IX. S. M. Weaver, Upper Iowa. 

1 Journal, 1908, p. 187. 

2 The phraseology of this amendment differs slightly from the two 
wordings found on pp. 85 and 163 of the Journal. We insert the ver¬ 
batim motion recorded in the Daily Proceedings of the Conference and 
attested by the Secretary. 


112 



DECISIONS OF 1908 


113 


X. W. H. Wilder, Illinois. 

XI. G. L. Yaple, Michigan. 

XII. T. F. Shepard, Detroit. 

XIII. C. A. J. Walker, Central German. 

XIV. A. M. Drew, Southern California. 3 

The Chairman of this Committee, during the session of 
the Conference, was Henry Wade Rogers; the Secretary was 
H. C. Perkins. 

Reports of the Committee. —The following twenty-nine 
reports of the Committee were duly acted upon by the Gen¬ 
eral Conference, as successively recorded: 

Report No. 1 

POWER OF GENERAL CONFERENCES TO CHANGE BOUNDARIES 

The following question was referred to us by the General 
Conference on May 14, namely: 

“Has the General Conference the power to so change the 
boundary of an Annual Conference as to either diminish or en¬ 
large the territory of an adjoining Mission?” 

To this we answer: Yes. The General Conference has su¬ 
preme power over Annual Conference boundaries, and may 
establish or change them at its pleasure, under such rules and 
regulations as it may itself enact. 

Presented and adopted, May 15. 4 

Report No. 2 

MISSION BOUNDARIES 

The following question was referred to us by the General 
Conference May 18, namely: 

“Do the conditions and limitations in 437 of the Discipline 
protect the boundaries of a Mission as they do the boundaries 
of an Annual Conference ?” 

To this we answer: No. The said conditions and limitations 
apply to organized Annual Conferences only. 

Presented and adopted, June l . 5 

Report No. 3 

judicial conference; order of argument and conviction 

UNDER ANOTHER PARAGRAPH 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully reviewed the 
records o n appeal in the case of Emil Schilling, member of the 

8 Journal, 1908, pp. 85, 214. 

*Ibid., pp. 302, 460, 461. 

6 /6id., pp. 434, 461. 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 



Finding of 
Committee 


114 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

South Germany Conference, charged with immoral conduct, re¬ 
ports as follows, to wit: 

During the intervals between the sessions of the said Annual 
Conference four charges of immoral conduct were brought 
against the said Emil Schilling by the Rev. R. Wobith, under 
§ 1 of If 222 of the Discipline. 

A Committee of investigation was appointed, and, after a 
hearing, found the said Emil Schilling guilty of all the said 
charges and suspended him from all ministerial services and 
Church privileges until the next Annual Conference. 

The Annual Conference met in Frankfurt, May 3, 1905, and 
appointed a Select Number to hear and determine the case. 

The Select Number found that the said Emil Schilling was 
not guilty of immoral conduct under § 1, If 222, but that he 
was guilty of high imprudence and unministerial conduct under 
If 231 of the Discipline, and the said Emil Schilling was sus¬ 
pended from his office for one year. 

An appeal was taken from the decision of the Select Number 
to the Judicial Conference, held at Stuttgart, January 4, 1906, 
Bishop William Burt presiding. 

The Judicial Conference entertained the appeal. The appeal 
was heard, and the Judicial Conference confirmed the findings 
of the Select Number. 

An appeal was taken by the said Emil Schilling from the 
decision of the Judicial Conference to this General Conference. 
The appellant claims that error has been committed in two 
particulars: First, that the accused was deprived of an oppor¬ 
tunity to answer the arguments of the representatives of the 
Conference; and, Second, that he was declared guilty of high 
imprudence and unministerial conduct without any cause, the 
Select Number not having substantiated a single charge under 

§ 1, If ^22. 

Concerning the first alleged error, the said Emil Schilling 
claims that after reading the evidence, charges, and findings 
the appellant and his counsel presented their argument to the 
Select Number of the Conference and then the representatives 
of the Conference presented their arguments, and that there¬ 
after the hearing was closed. 

The said Schilling admits that this order of argument was 
agreed upon by him, but claims that it is so operated in its 
effect as to deprive him and his counsel of an opportunity to 
reply to the arguments of his opponent. 

If 268 of the Discipline prescribes the order of argument on 
appeals to Judicial Conferences, but is not, in express terms, 
made applicable to trials in Annual Conferences. By agreeing 
to the order of argument above mentioned the appellant, in our 
opinion, has waived any and all right to claim error by reason 
thereof. 


DECISIONS OF 1908 


115 


Concerning the second alleged error, the action of the Select 
Number of the Annual Conference in acquitting the said Schill¬ 
ing on the charges of immoral conduct under § 1, If 222, of the 
Discipline , and in convicting him of high imprudence and un- 
ministerial conduct under If 231 of the Discipline , seems to be in 
in accordance with the provisions of the last-mentioned para¬ 
graph. 

Your Committee is therefore of the opinion that all the deci¬ 
sions of questions of law contained in the records and docu¬ 
ments transmitted to this General Conference from the said 
Judicial Conference in this matter are free from serious error 
prejudicial to the appellant. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 6 

Report No. 4 

APPEAL OF MARIE CHURCH, CHICAGO 

Your Committee on Judiciary has examined into the appeal 
of members of the Marie Church, of Rock River Conference, 
bringing to the consideration of your body a controversy exist¬ 
ing between said church and the Trinity Methodist Episcopal 
Church, of Chicago, concerning the title and right of posses¬ 
sion in and to property which for many years was occupied by 
the Marie Church as a place of worship. This appeal is re¬ 
enforced by the appeal and memorial of the Rev. W. H. Burns 
and eleven other members of said Conference. The appellants 
also seek a review of certain orders and rulings by Bishops 
McDowell, Berry, and Warren with relation to said controversy. 
The material facts as disclosed by the records and papers pre¬ 
sented are substantially as follows: 

In the year 1883 Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church, of 
Chicago, had in contemplation the founding of what was then 
known as the Wentworth Avenue Methodist Episcopal Mission, 
which Mission afterward developed into the Marie Church. In 
aid of that enterprise, Mr. H. N. Higinbotham, a member of 
the Trinity Official Board, proposed to donate the lot on which 
the mission building was to be erected. In seeking gifts with 
which to erect the building application was made to the First 
Methodist Episcopal Church, of Chicago, whose Trustees held 
certain funds in trust for the building of Methodist Episcopal 
Churches. The application was favorably considered, and the 
Trustees of First Church adopted a written resolution agree¬ 
ing to donate the sum of $10,000 to said building, on the 
express condition that Mr. Higinbotham would undertake to 
convey the title to the property to the First Church within 
three years from that date, free from incumbrance, which title 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


6 Journal, 1908, pp. 434, 461, 462. 



116 EEPOETS OF THE JUDICIAEY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


was to be held by First Church in trust and conveyed to the 
new church to be organized out of the mission, whenever it 
should become duly incorporated. On receiving this proposal 
the Official Board of Trinity Church, including Mr. Higin- 
botham, held a meeting and formally accepted it, and caused 
a written record of said offer by First Church, and its own 
acceptance thereof, to be entered in the books of the church 
and signed by its President and Secretary. The donation was 
paid, and applied to its intended purpose. The Mission appears 
to have prospered, and in 1901 was incorporated as the Marie 
Methodist Episcopal Church. In its report to the Annual Con¬ 
ference it shows a list of members, 302; probationers, 77; Sun¬ 
day school officers and teachers, 38, and Sunday-school scholars, 
327. During its last year, under pastoral care, its receipts were 
over $4,300, and at the close of the business year it was without 
debt. It had accumulated a Sabbath-school library of liberal 
proportions, and was reasonably well supplied with furniture 
and conveniences for the comfortable use and enjoyment of the 
building as a place of worship. The entire property is repre¬ 
sented to be worth about $40,000. 

Returning now to the history of the disputed title, it appears 
that Mr. Higinbotham never conveyed it to First Church, ac¬ 
cording to the terms of said donation, but did, after an interval 
of a few years, make a conveyance thereof to Trinity Church for 
a nominal consideration. The reason prompting this diversion 
of the title from the First Church to Trinity is not disclosed in 
the record. When the Marie Church had become incorporated 
and competent to take title to itself, it called upon Trinity 
Church to recognize the trust character of the title which it had 
received from Mr. Higinbotham, and to make conveyance thereof 
according to the spirit and intent of the agreement under which 
the donation had been made by the First Church, but this 
demand was refused. Thereafter, and after unavailing efforts 
to secure a settlement by amicable methods, Marie Church 
brought an action in the courts of the State to have the trust 
established. Unfortunately, at that time the written evidence 
of the agreement had been lost sight of, and the suit was based 
upon the oral understanding. Trinity Church appeared to the 
suit and made objection that under the laws of Illinois the 
alleged trust agreement could not be enforced by the courts 
unless it had been reduced to writing. This objection was sus¬ 
tained, and the plaintiff’s bill was dismissed. Since that time the 
records embodying the agreement have been found, and so far 
as appears, their verity is denied by no one. Trinity Church con¬ 
tinued however to deny any right of ownership in Marie Church, 
but offered to make to the latter a lease of the property at a 
nominal rental, but Marie Church refused to accept the position 
of tenant of property of which it claimed to be the equitable 


DECISIONS OF 1908 


117 


owner. In December, 1905, a Commission appointed by the 
Rock River Conference to negotiate some settlement or compro¬ 
mise of the difficulty reported a plan of compromise, by which 
the title to the property should be placed in the City Mission¬ 
ary and Church Extension Society. Marie Church promptly 
signified its readiness to accept the compromise, but Trinity 
Church refused to concur. Later, another Commission was ap¬ 
pointed by the Conference to consider the matter, and reported 
that Trinity Church should make a conveyance of the property 
to First Church, to be held in trust for the use of Marie Church, 
but Trinity also declined to comply with this finding. After 
refusing to accept the finding of the Commission, Trinity Church 
adopted a resolution that if Marie Church did not at once 
abandon its claim to the property and enter upon cordial rela¬ 
tions with Trinity, the episcopal authorities should be appealed 
to for an order “to unite Marie Charge with the Trinity Charge 
for the Quarterly Conference purposes,” or “to discontinue Marie 
Charge as a preaching place.” The Marie Church still declin¬ 
ing to submit, Trinity took steps to carry out its threat of 
benevolent assimilation by force of an episcopal order eliminat¬ 
ing so far as possible the separate and independent existence of 
its opponent. In September, 1906, a short time before the 
assembling of the Annual Conference, over which Bishop Berry 
was to preside, Bishop McDowell, having first urgently advised 
Marie Church to yield its claim of ownership and accept a lease 
of the property from Trinity, addressed a letter to the Presiding 
Elder, ordering that “Marie Chapel be discontinued as a separate 
charge,” and that it be “connected with the Trinity Church of 
Chicago.” Acting presumably upon this authority, but without 
obtaining the consent or concurrence of the Quarterly Confer¬ 
ence, the Presiding Elder caused notice to be given to the effect 
that Marie Church was discontinued as a preaching place until 
further notice. Since that date, the Presiding Elder has held no 
Quarterly Conference upon the Marie Charge, and said charge 
has been without the service of a preacher and without pastoral 
care, though it has appeared before each Annual Conference 
and asked to be placed upon the list of appointments and given 
a pastor. Soon after the adjournment of the Annual Confer¬ 
ence of 1906, Trinity Church, by its officers and agents, took 
forcible possession of the Marie Church property, and locked 
and secured it against use by said church and thereafter leased 
it to the Baptist denomination, which is now using this Meth¬ 
odist church as a place of worship and for the building of a 
society of its own faith and order, while the large membership 
of Methodists, who for twenty-three years had been accustomed 
to look to it as their religious home, is left homeless and shep¬ 
herdless. At all times, in season and out of season, in each re¬ 
curring Annual Conference, and before each Bishop holding or 


Question 

referred 


118 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


exercising jurisdiction in that territory, Marie Church, its mem¬ 
bers and friends, have sought for relief, but without avail. 
Bishop Berry, presiding in 1906, appears to have felt bound by 
the order of Bishop McDowell, and refused to listen to any appli¬ 
cation or demand for the appointment of a pastor to said charge. 
Bishop Warren, at the 1907 session of the Conference, also de¬ 
clined to interfere, and when asked to answer certain questions 
as to the law governing the situation, declined so to do at that 
time, but said he would take them before the next meeting of 
the Episcopal Board. Thereupon, this appeal was taken, and the 
matter brought to the attention of this General Conference. 

The case calls for inquiry into the claim of Marie Church to 
the property in controversy. The facts which we have recited 
admit of but one possible conclusion by any unprejudiced mind, 
upon this feature of the appeal. Trinity Church, having ob¬ 
tained the donation from First Church on the express condition 
that the property should be conveyed to the latter in trust for 
the new church thereafter to be organized from the Mission, 
could not, upon any sound principle of law or morals, defeat 
that trust by taking title to itself, and when the Mission was 
organized and incorporated as a church it was clearly entitled 
to demand the execution of said trust according to its terms. 
The fact that Higinbotham did not personally sign an agree¬ 
ment to make the conveyance is immaterial. He was a member 
of the official board of Trinity Church, which applied to First 
Church for the donation. He acted with said Official Board in 
accepting the donation upon the terms proposed, and when, in 
violation of those terms, he conveyed the title to Trinity, the 
latter took it, charged with the trust, and was bound to make 
the conveyance which it had agreed should be made for the 
benefit of the newly organized church. It follows therefore that 
in repudiating the trust and ejecting Marie Church from the 
property which it equitably owns, Trinity Church was wrong, 
and that, in refusing a lease and demanding a conveyance of the 
title, Marie Church was right. Without attempting to pass upon 
the merely technical legal rights, if any, growing out of the 
failure of the suit brought by Marie Church in the civil courts, 
we hold that the claim of Trinity Church to own said property 
and to exclude Marie Church therefrom, and its assumption of 
authority to lease the same to a church of another denomination, 
is unfounded, inequitable, and contrary to good conscience and 
the plain teaching of God’s Word. Trinity Church should right 
the wrong by restoring the property to the possession of Marie 
Church and by executing all papers necessary to perfect its title 
beyond controversy in the future, and it is so ordered. Turning 
now to the complaints based upon the rulings of the Bishops, 
we have to say: 

1. That, in so far as the order of Bishop McDowell con- 


DECISIONS OF 1908 


119 


templated a union of Marie Church with Trinity, he appears 
subsequently to have withdrawn it, as being based on a mis¬ 
apprehension of the law, and therefore we need not consider 
it. 

2. The order to discontinue the church as a preaching place, 
and the notice of the Presiding Elder to that effect having been 
made in the interval between Conferences without the concur¬ 
rence or consent of the Quarterly Conference, was in excess of 
authority as limited by the Discipline, ^ 193, § 32. 

3. In view of the withdrawal of the episcopal order for the 
union of the two charges, and the strong probability that if our 
findings with respect to the property are approved by the Gen¬ 
eral Conference and accepted in good faith by the parties, it will 
put an end to all strife and lead to a prompt restoration of 
Marie Church to the list of appointments, we are not disposed 
to enter upon any attempt to define or measure the limits of the 
episcopal prerogative to summarily or arbitrarily order the dis¬ 
continuance of a preaching place, or to refuse a pastor to a self- 
supporting charge which asks for such appointment and is able 
and willing to receive and support such pastor. But we think 
it proper to say that, in our opinion, the time-honored rule of 
the common law of our Church, which assures a preacher to 
every pulpit and a pulpit for every preacher, is one not to be 
lightly disregarded. Marie Church has proved its right to live. 
It is in a neighborhood not otherwise supplied with Methodist 
preaching places. It has done a valuable work and gathered 
about it a strong and loyal membership, more than twice the 
membership of First Church and more than two thirds of the 
membership of its parent church, to which, against its protest, 
it has been sought to attach it, or be left without pastoral care. 
Such a church should not be left to disintegrate and be lost to 
Methodism for want of a shepherd, nor should it be denied the 
recognition or the rights which have always been accorded to 
Methodist churches in general, unless it forfeits the same by 
insubordination. Above all, it should not be subjected to a 
deprivation of such right as a punishment for refusing to submit 
to what it justly esteemed a wrongful demand for the surrender 
of its right to the ownership of its own house of worship. 

Presented and adopted, May 30. 7 

Report No. 5 

EPISCOPAL DECISION" IN OPEN CONFERENCE; TRIAL RECORDS LACK¬ 
ING, AND CHURCH-MEMBER REINSTATED 

Your Committee, having carefully reviewed the records of ap¬ 
peal in the case of the Goddard Methodist Episcopal Church, of 

7 Journal , 1908, pp. 426, 427, 462-467. 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 



120 REPOETS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


Goddard, Kansas, to the President of the Southwest Kansas 
Conference, from the decision of the Presiding Elder of the 
Wichita District in said Conference, reports as follows, to wit: 

It appears from the records that Curtis P. Shafer, a member 
of the Goddard Methodist Episcopal Church, was tried on a 
charge of immoral conduct. A verdict of guilty was rendered 
by the Committee, and a judgment expelling him from the 
Church was pronounced by the preacher in charge. 

An appeal was taken by the said Curtis P. Shafer to the 
District Triers of Appeals of members. The Presiding Elder 
of the Wichita District, presiding in the said court of appeals, 
on motion of the counsel for the appellant, remanded the case 
for a new trial on the ground that no minutes or records of the 
evidence taken had been preserved by the trial court, or pre¬ 
sented by the said preacher in charge, or otherwise, to the said 
court of appeals, as required by the Discipline. That from 
this decision of the District Triers of Appeals the church ap¬ 
pealed on a question of law to the President of the next Annual 
Conference. The President of said Annual Conference, Bishop 
Spellmeyer, did not return his decision upon said appeal in open 
session of said Conference, but did, after the adjournment there¬ 
of, render a ruling confirming the decision of the Presiding 
Elder, which ruling is indorsed on the record in the case, and 
before us. In this condition the case is before us for review. It 
does not come to the General Conference by appeal. It cannot. 
Your Committee, however, holds that, in view of the condition 
of the case, as hereinbefore stated, the General Conference can 
review the case as if before it on writ of error, or certiorari, and 
give adequate relief. In the opinion of your Committee, the 
ruling of a Bishop on such an appeal, to constitute a decision of 
binding force and effect, must be rendered in open session of 
Annual Conference, and should be made a part of the records 
of the same. 

Your Committee finds no error in the decision of the Presid¬ 
ing Elder remanding such case for a new trial. Paragraph 273 
of the Discipline makes it the duty of the preacher in charge to 
“present exact minutes of the evidence and proceeding in the 
trial from which the appeal is taken” to the appellate court. 
That duty is not incumbent upon the accused. The failure of 
the preacher in charge to present such minutes constitutes an 
error, for which the case should be remanded for a new trial. 

Your Committee therefore recommends that this case be re¬ 
manded to the President of the Southwest Kansas Annual Con¬ 
ference, with directions to cause the decision on such appeal to 
be rendered in open session of said Conference, in conformity 
with the views herein expressed. 

Upon said case being remanded, the said Curtis P. Shafer 
shall be considered as being reinstated in all the rights and 


DECISIONS OF 1908 


121 


privileges as a member of the Church, under charges, until a 
new trial is had or the charges are withdrawn. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 8 

Report No. 6 

SUBSTITUTION OP “RETIRED” POR “SUPERANNUATED” 

The following question was submitted to us by the General 
Conference, upon the request of the Committee on Revision, to 
wit: 

“Would the substitution of the word ‘Retired* for the word 
‘Superannuated* affect the legal status of superannuates or so¬ 
cieties for the benefit of superannuates named in wills, legacies, 
etc?** 

To this we answer: In our opinion, it would not. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 9 

Report No. 7 

SUPERNUMERARY RELATION JUSTIFIED: REFERENCE TO 
COMMITTEE ON EPISCOPACY 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully examined the 
records on appeal in the case of the Rev. Domenico Polsinelli, 
a member of the Italian Annual Conference, respectfully re¬ 
ports : 

That we find no error in the action of the said Conference 
in placing the name of the appellant on the supernumerary list, 
but the record contains matter which, in our opinion, is proper 
to be considered by the Committee on Episcopacy, to which Com¬ 
mittee we recommend the matter be referred. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 10 

Report No. 8 

ANNUAL CONFERENCE ACTION WITHOUT TRIAL VOID 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully reviewed the 
records on appeal in the case of Hinckley G. Mitchell, of the 
Central New York Conference, reports as follows, to wit: 

It appears by the records that in October, 1906, a Committee 
was appointed by the order of said Conference to investigate the 
case of Hinckley G. Mitchell and to take whatever action they 
might deem wise. 

After said Committee was appointed the relation of said 
Hinckley G. Mitchell was changed from effective to super- 

8 Journal, 1908, pp. 434, 467, 468. 

» Ibid., pp. 434, 468. 

10 Ibid., pp. 434, 468. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 
Conference 
action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 



122 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


Minority 

Report 


numerary, without making provision to have the investigation 
conducted according to If 222, § 4, of the Discipline. 

The Committee proceeded to investigate the doctrinal sound¬ 
ness of said Hinckley G. Mitchell, but did not summon him or 
notify him or his representatives to appear before them. The 
Committee, in reporting to the Conference at the session held in 
October, 1907, without giving specifications or presenting any 
evidence, reported that they believed that the said Hinckley 
G. Mitchell was not in harmony with the doctrine and Discipline 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and at the same time recom¬ 
mended that the Conference do not proceed to the extremity of 
a trial, but that it make a deliverance protesting against un- 
Methodistic, destructive, and divisive teachings in any of our 
theological schools. 

The report of this Committee was adopted by the Conference, 
and thereafter the Conference passed the character of said 
Hinckley G. Mitchell, but refused to reconsider the adoption of 
the report of the Committee. 

Demand was thereupon made by said Hinckley G. Mitchell 
for immediate trial, but the Conference deferred action upon his 
demand for one year. A motion to expunge from the report of 
the Committee all reflection upon the character of said Hinckley 
G. Mitchell was laid upon the table. 

There appear to be no disciplinary provisions for the report of 
the Committee or the action of the Conference in adopting such 
report. The report of the Committee was a reflection upon the 
character of said Hinckley G. Mitchell. It was the duty of the 
Conference to grant him a trial upon his demand therefor, or to 
expunge from the report of the Committee all reflections upon 
his character. The Conference neglected and refused so to do. 
Your Committee on Judiciary therefore recommends that the 
action of the Committee appointed by the Central New York 
Conference to investigate the case of the said Hinckley G. 
Mitchell, and the action of said Conference in adopting the re¬ 
port of such Committee, be declared null and void. 

(Minority Report) 

The undersigned, minority of the Judiciary Committee, file 
this, their report on the appeal of Hinckley G. Mitchell from 
the action of the Central New York Conference. 

It appears by the records that in October, 1906, a Committee 
was appointed by the order of said Conference to investigate 
the case of Hinckley G. Mitchell, and to take whatever action 
they might deem wise. 

After said Committee was appointed the relation of said 
Hinckley G. Mitchell was changed from Effective to Super¬ 
numerary, without making provision to have the investigation 
conducted according to Paragraph 222, Section 4, of the Disci¬ 
pline. 


DECISIONS OF 1908 


123 


The Committee proceeded to investigate the doctrinal sound¬ 
ness of said Hinckley G. Mitchell, but did not summon him or 
notify him or his representative to appear before them. The 
Committee, in reporting to the Conference, at the session held 
in October, 1907, without giving specifications or presenting any 
evidence, reported that they believed that the said Hinckley 
G. Mitchell was not in harmony with the doctrine and Disci¬ 
pline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and at the same time 
recommended that the Conference do not proceed to the ex¬ 
tremity of a trial, but that it make a deliverance protesting 
against un-Methodistic, destructive, and divisive teachings in 
any of our theological schools. 

The report of this Committee was adopted by the Conference, 
and thereafter the Conference passed the character of said 
Hinckley G. Mitchell, but refused to reconsider the adoption of 
the report of the Committee. 

Demand was thereupon made by said Hinckley G. Mitchell 
for immediate trial, but the Conference deferred action upon 
his demand for one year. A motion to expunge from the re¬ 
port of the Committee all reflection upon the character of said 
Hinckley G. Mitchell was laid upon the table. 

The action of the Central New York Conference in refusing 
to grant the said Hinckley G. Mitchell a trial is disapproved. 

Presented; minority report not substituted; adopted, June l. 11 

Repoet No. 9 

location affirmed; refusal of new evidence proper 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully reviewed the 
appeal of Emil Schilling from the action of the South Germany 
Conference, locating him, in accordance with Paragraph 228 
of the Discipline, reports as follows: 

It appears by the records that on June 6, 1905, while said 
Emil Schilling, as a member of the South Germany Conference, 
was under suspension for a year, he was directed to locate at 
the end of said year of suspension, and he failed so to do. On 
June 7, 1906, he was tried and located, in accordance with 
Paragraph 228 of the Discipline. The first two errors assigned 
relate to the manner of trial; and your Committee finds that the 
Conference substantially complied with the requirements of the 
Discipline, and that no error has been committed. 

The third error assigned questioned the right of the Annual 
Conference to try a member while under suspension. Your Com¬ 
mittee finds that at the time of the trial the period of suspension 
had already expired, and, in our opinion, the point is not well 
taken. 

11 Journal, 1908, pp. 434, 435, 468, 469. 


Conference 

Action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 




124 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


The fourth error assigned is that the proceedings locating the 
appellant added a second penalty to the former trial suspending 
him. In our opinion, this action was an entirely separate pro¬ 
ceeding, and was proper. 

The fifth error assigned is that new evidence not offered at the 
trial was refused on the appeal before the Judicial Conference. 
The refusal to hear additional evidence, in our opinion, was 
proper. 

Your Committee therefore recommends that the decisions of 
the South Germany Conference and of the Judicial Conference 
be affirmed and the appeal dismissed. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 12 

Report No. 10 

UNION WITH ANOTHER CHURCH BARS APPEAL I INVESTIGATION 
BEFORE TRIAL 

The Committee on Judiciary has duly considered the appeal 
of A. C. Boyd, in which he alleges that he is still a member of 
the Kansas Conference, and asks the General Conference to 
establish his membership in the said Conference and to grant 
him permission to transfer his membership to an eastern Con¬ 
ference. 

The papers filed in the case by Presiding Elders J. R. Madison, 
J. S. Ford, and William C. Hanson, of the Kansas Confer¬ 
ence, show that, after the action taken by the Conference of 
which said A. C. Boyd complains, he, the said Boyd, united with 
the Methodist Protestant Church and entered its ministry, from 
which he was subsequently expelled. 

If any irregularity was committed by the Kansas Conference 
concerning which it is necessary to express an opinion, no right 
of appeal exists, as the said Boyd, by formally uniting with the 
ministry of another Church, thereby ceased to be a minister of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

It is not within the power of the General Conference to rein¬ 
state him in the ministry of our Church, or to direct the Kansas 
Conference to reopen the case. 

Your Committee has also had before it a complaint made by 
Mrs. Tillie G. Boyd against Bishop Daniel A. Goodsell, as 
President of the Iowa Annual Conference in 1906, in that he 
referred charges brought against a member of that Conference to 
a Committee of the Conference for preliminary investigation 
and report, instead of putting the accused on trial before the 
Conference. 

There was no error in the course pursued and no ground of 
complaint. 


u Journal, 1908, pp. 435, 469, 470. 



DECISIONS OF 1008 


125 


Under If 222, § 7, an Annual Conference may put on trial 
an accused member where there has been no previous investiga¬ 
tion. 

The Committee has also considered the complaint made by 
Mrs. Tillie 0. Boyd against Bishop William F. McDowell, as 
President of the Kansas Conference in 1908, in pursuing the 
same course in reference to charges preferred by her against a 
member of that Conference. For reasons above stated there was 
no error in the course pursued. 

Your Committee therefore recommends that the appeal in 
these three cases be dismissed. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 13 

Report No. 11 

WILMINGTON CONFERENCE PETITION; NO APPELLATE FEATURES 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully considered 
the petition of several members of the Wilmington Annual Con¬ 
ference, asking for decisions in certain matters of law relating 
to the standing of A. W. Lightbourn, a member of the said Con¬ 
ference, reports as follows: 

The petition above mentioned asks for rulings on certain 
questions of law suggested to the petitioners by reason of the 
judicial proceedings in the said Conference, but which questions, 
insofar as papers submitted to us show, were not ruled upon 
in such proceedings, and the said petition has no appellate fea¬ 
tures whatever. 

For the above reasons, in our opinion, there is no warrant for 
action by this Conference. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 14 

Report No. 12 

APPEAL FROM EPISCOPAL RULING; RECORDS DEFICIENT 

Your Committee, having carefully considered the petition of 
George A. Cooke, now a member of the New York Conference, 
purporting to be an appeal from the ruling of Bishop David H. 
Moore, in the case of charges against James R. Day, of the said 
Conference, report as follows: 

The records on appeal are absolutely deficient and contain no 
statements, documents, or evidence upon which your Committee 
can act. Said appeal is therefore dismissed. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 15 

13 Journal, 1908, pp. 435, 470, 471. 

14 Ibid., pp. 435, 471. 

*Ibid., pp. 435, 471. 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 



Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


126 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
Report No. 13 

POWERS OF THE SELECT NUMBER 

The following questions relating to the Select Number ap¬ 
pointed by the Annual Conference to try cases, as provided in 
If 230, § 3, were submitted to us by the General Conference upon 
the memorial of the Montana Annual Conference, to wit: 

1. Does the “full power” now conferred upon them to “con¬ 
sider and determine all cases” give them power to determine 
questions of law and testimony and procedure, or is that power 
vested in the President appointed in the absence of a Bishop ? 

2. What number is necessary to constitute a verdict—unan¬ 
imous, a majority, or a two-thirds vote? 

3. What shall constitute proper testimony, without cross- 
examination ? 

4. Is it possible to have proper testimony without an oppor¬ 
tunity of cross-examination by the accused, either oral or 
written ? 

To the first question we answer as follows: The Select Number 
appointed by the Annual Conference have full power to consider 
the evidence and determine all questions of fact in the cases 
before them. They have no power to determine questions of law 
or procedure. The Bishop, or the Chairman appointed in the 
absence of the Bishop, has full power to consider and determine 
all questions of law and procedure, including questions as to 
the admissibility of evidence. 

To the second question we answer: A majority. 

To the third and fourth questions we answer as follows: 
Reasonable opportunity for cross-examination should be afforded. 
If the accused fail to avail himself of such opportunity, testi¬ 
mony may be properly taken and used without cross-examina¬ 
tion. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 16 

Report No. 14 

“UNFORESEEN EMERGENCY” APPROPRIATIONS 

The Committee on Judiciary, having been instructed by the 
General Conference to give an opinion on the question whether 
the Missionary Committee had a right, in harmony with the 
letter and spirit of Article XI of the Constitution of the Mis¬ 
sionary Society, to leave out of its budget of appropriations the 
amount specified in said article for “Unforeseen Emergencies,” 
reports as follows: 

It is the opinion of the Committee on Judiciary that the Mis¬ 
sionary Committee is required by Article XI of said Constitu- 


* Journal, 1908, pp. 435, 471, 472. 



DECISIONS OF 1908 


127 


tion to include the amount specified therein for “Unforeseen 
Emergencies” in its annual appropriations. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 17 

Report No. 15 

SUPERANNUATED BISHOP AND BOUNDARIES COMMITTEE 

The following resolution was submitted to the Judiciary Com¬ 
mittee by the General Conference, upon the request of the 
Central Ohio Conference, to wit: 

Resolved , That the Committee on Judiciary be requested to 
consider and report to the General Conference whether a super¬ 
annuated Bishop can legally preside over the Committee on 
Boundaries. 

To this resolution we answer: He can. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 18 

Report No. 16 

TRIAL JUDGE AS WITNESS 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully reviewed the 
records on appeal in the case of Caleb H. Butter worth, appellant, 
vs. Henry Duncan et al., appellees, wherein Caleb H. Butter- 
worth was expelled from the First Methodist Episcopal Church, 
of Camden, New Jersey, on a charge of immoral conduct, re¬ 
spectfully reports as follows: 

The appellant brings this case before the General Conference 
on a specification of errors to the rulings of the presiding officer 
occurring at the trial had before the Select Number of the 
New Jersey Conference. The appellant was a local preacher. 
The charge was immoral conduct; the specifications, (1) lying, 
(2) forgery. The evidence was taken before the required num¬ 
ber of local preachers, acting as an investigating Committee, 
the Rev. Wesley A. Hunsberger, pastor in the church, presiding. 

At the trial before the Quarterly Conference, Dr. George L. 
Dobbins, Presiding Elder of the District, presided. Numerous 
errors are assigned, chief among which is the one that Dr. George 
L. Dobbins appeared before the investigating Committee as a 
witness and testified, and, as trial judge at the Quarterly Con¬ 
ference, he ruled upon the admissibility of his own testimony, 
admitting the same over the objection of the appellant, to which 
an exception was taken. 

In the judgment of your Committee, this was error. (See 
General Conference Journal, 1896, page 423.) 

17 Journal, 1908, pp. 435, 472. 

"Ibid., pp. 435, 472, 473. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 
Conference 
action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 



128 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


We recommend that the case be reversed, and remanded for a 
trial. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 19 

Report No. 17 

EPISCOPAL RULINGS IN NORWEGIAN AND DANISH CONFERENCE 
SUSTAINED 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully reviewed the 
records in the appeal of the Rev. R. F. Wilhelmsen from the 
decisions of Bishop Henry Spellmeyer, in the case of the Rev. 
Fr. Ring, of the Norwegian and Danish Annual Conference, 
respectfully reports as follows: 

In 1904, when the name of the Rev. Fr. Ring was called, the 
Presiding Elder, the Rev. L. A. Larson, reported that charges 
had been preferred against the Rev. Fr. Ring, that a Com¬ 
mittee of investigation had been called, and that the charges were 
not established; neither was any specification under the charges 
sustained. 

The Conference passed the character of the accused. 

There is evidence that the Presiding Elder who had presided 
at the preliminary trial, in reporting the verdict in this case, 
did not read these words which were a part of the findings of 
the Committee, namely: “But, while the investigating Com¬ 
mittee finds that Fr. Ring is not guilty of the charge preferred 
against him, nevertheless, the Committee regards him, accord¬ 
ing to the evidence, as being guilty of high imprudence and un- 
ministerial conduct.” 

We note that the accused had not been suspended, but the 
Conference session was near at hand. 

At the session of the Conference in 1905 the appellant asked 
the presiding Bishop, Henry Spellmeyer, these questions: 

“Had the Committee authority to declare the said Rev. Fr. 
Ring guilty of high imprudence and unministerial conduct ?” 

“Had the Presiding Elder authority to leave out of the verdict 
that part relating to high imprudence and unministerial con¬ 
duct?” 

The Bishop gave his decision in the following statement: 

“1. When the Committee of investigation found no specifica¬ 
tion, in their judgment, sustained by the testimony, the function 
and authority of that Committee was ended. 

“2. When the Committee stated, in framing its report, that it 
regarded the accused as being guilty of high imprudence and un¬ 
ministerial conduct, such statement was extra-judicial, unau¬ 
thorized by law, and no proper part of the verdict. 

“3. When the Presiding Elder reported that the Committee 




19 Journal , 1908, pp. 435, 473. 



DECISIONS OF 1908 


129 


found that the charges were not sustained by the evidence, he 
reported all that the Committee should have placed in their re¬ 
port consistent with their prerogative. 

“4. When the Presiding Elder did not report all that the Com¬ 
mittee had framed as their report he merely left out what never 
should have been put in. 

“5. If the Conference, or any part of the Conference, wished 
the omitted portion stated and had then asked for it, doubtless 
the Presiding Elder would have been explicit, but the main 
issue would not thereby have been changed. 

“6. As no specification was sustained, and as the next ensu¬ 
ing Annual Conference passed the character of the accused, my 
opinion is that the case should be considered closed.” 

From this ruling R. F. Wilhelmsen appealed. The Confer¬ 
ence again passed the character of the Rev. Fr. Ring, and ordered 
all reference to the case expunged from the Conference Minutes. 

In proceedings under If 222 of the Discipline, it is our opinion 
that when the evidence justifies it the Committee may find the 
accused guilty of an offense less than that for which he is 
charged, as in ^f 231. The Presiding Elder erred in withhold¬ 
ing a portion of the verdict of the Committee in his report to the 
Annual Conference in the case of Fr. Ring. However, since the 
records show: (1) That the members of the Committee knew all 
the facts in the case; (2) that the record was accepted by the 
Conference without dissent; (3) that the character of Fr. Ring 
was passed and he was assigned to a charge; (4) that one year 
thereafter his character was again passed; (5) that the Confer¬ 
ence instructed the Secretary to expunge from the Conferenc 
Journal all reference to an appeal on questions propounded to 
Bishop Spellmeyer; (6) and that the purpose of the questions 
which were submitted to Bishop Spellmeyer was to reopen the 
case, and that the records clearly show that the Conference 
would not entertain a motion to reopen the case, we sustain 
the decision of Bishop Spellmeyer in that he decided the case 
closed. 

In the matter of the complaint of the Rev. R. F. Wilhelmsen 
against Bishop William F. McDowell, in the case of the Rev. 
Fr. Ring, it does not appear that any ruling complained of by 
the said Wilhelmsen against Bishop William F. McDowell, in 
the case of Fr. Ring, of the Norwegian and Danish Annual Con¬ 
ference, is a matter of record, and it does not appear from the 
records in our possession that any appeal was taken from any 
ruling of the presiding officer of the said Conference. 

Therefore we find no warrant for action on this complaint 
and the appeal is hereby dismissed. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 20 
~ 20 Journal, 1908, pp. 435, 473-475. 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 



130 EEPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Report No. 18 

BISHOPS SUSTAINED IN THEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION 

Hinckley G. Mitchell, late professor in the Boston University 
School of Theology, comes to the General Conference and com¬ 
plains of the action of the Board of Bishops, as will herein¬ 
after appear. 

Acting under the legislation of the General Conferences of 
1900 and 1904, on charges preferred by H. W. Peck and others, 
the Board of Bishops appointed a Committee to investigate the 
charges and report to the Board of Bishops, which Committee 
was composed in part of retired Bishops, and which Committee 
in due time reported as follows: 

"1. That the evidence submitted was not sufficient to prove 
the first complaint, namely, that Professor Mitchell denies 
the deity of Christ. 

“2. That some of the statements of Professor Mitchell con¬ 
cerning the historic character of the early chapters of the book 
of Genesis seem to us unwarranted and objectionable, and as 
having a tendency to invalidate the authority of other portions 
of the Scriptures. We therefore think that there is some ground 
for complaint on this head. 

“3. That, having carefully considered the other matters con¬ 
tained in the complaint, we are of the opinion that what we 
have already said covers the case, and no further deliverance is 
necessary/’ 

In compliance with the legislation of the General Conference 
above referred to, the Board of Bishops, having adopted the 
report of the Committee, ordered the same transmitted to the 
Trustees of Boston University, which was accordingly done. 
Professor Mitchell claims that this action resulted in his losing 
his place in the faculty of the university. 

Some further correspondence ensued between Professor 
Mitchell and the Board of Bishops. He complained that he had 
not been permitted to appear before them and make a defense, 
but the Bishops refused to change or modify their actions. The 
grounds of complaint in this matter are carefully set forth on 
pages 16 and 17 of the record, and are lettered “A” “B,” “C,” 
etc., and our answer to the same will be likewise lettered, and we 
think will sufficiently indicate the grounds of complaint. 

(a) The General Conference authorized and directed the 
Bishops, when formal charges of misteaching are made against 
teachers in theological schools, to investigate the same and report 
the result of their investigations to the Board of Trustees of the 
schools involved, for proper action in the premises. 

(b) In so acting the Bishops did not illegally exercise a func¬ 
tion of the Annual Conference, as to the trial of preachers, or a 
determination of their doctrinal soundness. 


DECISIONS OF 1908 


131 


(c) The Bishops in thus acting did not disqualify themselves 
from presiding at the Central New York Conference, where prac¬ 
tically the same charges were preferred against Professor 
Mitchell. There may be a question as to the propriety of a 
Bishop, who has taken part in the investigation in the Board of 
Bishops, presiding at the hearing of a matter in the Annual Con¬ 
ference which is substantially the same as that heard before the 
Board of Bishops, but it does not amount to a disqualification; 
and especially is this true, as we find the law to be that the 
Bishop who presides at the trial in the Annual Conference is not 
called upon to pass upon the guilt or innocence of the accused, 
but is only there to see that the trial is conducted in an orderly 
manner, and according to law, and to rule upon questions of law 
and not on questions of fact. And we further understand it to 
be the almost universal practice for the Bishop to refer the 
matter to a Select Committee, and to appoint some member of 
the Conference to preside in his stead. 

(d) We find that there was no error in the action of the Board 
of Bishops in referring this matter to the Committee composed 
in part of retired Bishops, as they might gather their informa¬ 
tion in any reasonable way, and by adopting the report of the 
Committee they made the finding of the Committee the finding 
of the Board of Bishops. 

(e) As to whether or not the Board of Bishops shall or shall 
not have called the accused before them in the making of such an 
investigation, and allowed him to make his defense, was a matter 
resting in the sound discretion of the Bishops, and there is no 
error in their proceedings. The law did not authorize them to 
affix any penalty, and they did not undertake to do so. Their 
action was in the nature of a preliminary examination, and not 
of a trial. 

(f) One ground of complaint is the alleged publication by 
the Bishops of the results of their action in the denominational 
and other journals. Whether this was done by the Bishops or by 
some one else is not made to appear before us clearly, but, even 
if the Bishops did so, we would still regard it as a matter within 
their sound discretion, keeping in view the good of the whole 
Church. The action of the Bishops in this matter is therefore 
sustained and the complaint dismissed. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 21 

Report No. 19 

DECISION OF OMAHA JUDICIAL CONFERENCE AFFIRMED 

Your Committee on Judiciary having carefully reviewed the 
appeal of the Rev. J. H. Vogt, a member of the Dakota Con¬ 
ference, respectfully reports as follows: 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


21 Journal, 1908, pp. 435, 475-477. 



132 EEPOETS OF THE JUDICIAEY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


The said Eev. J. H. Yogt was tried before a Select Number of 
said Conference, elected by said Conference at Brooking, South 
Dakota, October 12, 1906. The charges against him were: 

(1) Immorality, with the specification of extreme and re¬ 
peated cruelty to his wife. 

(2) Unchristian conduct, with the specification of ignoring 
worship and all public means of grace. 

The first charge was sustained under the specification of 
extreme and repeated cruelty to his wife. The second charge of 
unchristian conduct was also sustained. The said Yogt was 
deposed from the ministry by the Dakota Conference. There¬ 
upon, the said Rev. J. H. Yogt appealed to the Judicial Con¬ 
ference convened by Bishop McDowell at Omaha, Nebraska, 
December 12, 1906. The case was heard in due form by Triers 
of Appeals, and the action of the Annual Conference was sus¬ 
tained. The said Yogt then appealed to the General Confer¬ 
ence from the decision of the Judicial Conference. 

A careful examination of all the points raised shows them to 
be without serious force. The facts, in brief, are: In November, 
1905, almost a year before the Conference trial, the wife of said 
J. H. Yogt obtained a final and absolute divorce from him in 
the civil court. The case was thoroughly tried, both appear¬ 
ing, and voluminous testimony was heard and weighed, with the 
result that an absolute divorce was granted to Mrs. J. H. Yogt, 
on the ground of extreme and repeated cruelty. Copies of this 
decree and of the main evidence on which it was granted were 
produced in the Conference trial, and were the basis of the action 
of the Conference in convicting said Yogt of immorality and in 
deposing him from the ministry. 

The records show that the accused had due notice of the 
charges against him and opportunity to defend himself; that 
both the Conference trial and the trial by the Judicial Confer¬ 
ence were in due and regular form, and that the technical errors 
alleged are of slight significance and value, and do not affect 
the main issue or the result of the trial. 

Your Committee is therefore of the opinion that the decision 
of the Judicial Conference should be affirmed. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 22 

Repoet No. 20 

SUBSIDIES AND SIXTH RESTRICTIVE RULE 

At a recent session of the General Conference the following 
resolution was adopted: 

“Whereas, 46, § 6, of the Discipline, known as the Sixth 
Restrictive Rule, says: 

22 Journal, 1908, pp. 435, 436, 477, 478. 



DECISIONS OF 1908 


133 


“ ‘The General Conference shall not appropriate the produce 
of The Book Concern, nor of the Chartered Fund, to any pur¬ 
pose other than the benefit of the traveling, supernumerary, and 
superannuated preachers, their wives, widows, and children*; and, 

“Whereas, The General Conference, at its session on Saturday, 
granted certain subsidies of money and paper which appear to 
be in conflict with said Sixth Restrictive Rule; now, therefore, 
be it 

“Resolved, That the Committee on Judiciary be, and is hereby, 
directed to consider the action taken granting these subsidies, 
and report to the General Conference at the earliest date prac¬ 
ticable, and on Wednesday, if possible, whether or not said action 
is contrary to the Sixth Restrictive Rule.** 

Responding to the said resolution, your Committee has con¬ 
sidered the inquiry so submitted anl begs leave to report : 

First—We assume the question thus stated has reference to 
the recent order or resolution adopted by this Conference pro¬ 
viding for an appropriation of money and paper to the South¬ 
western Christian Advocate, owned and published by The Book 
Concern at New Orleans, Louisiana, and for a similar appro¬ 
priation to the Advocate-Journal, a religious journal owned and 
published by private parties at Athens, Tennessee. 

Second—In our opinion, the appropriation to the South¬ 
western Christian Advocate, a paper owned by The Book Con¬ 
cern, and for the maintenance and support of which it is legally 
responsible, is not prohibited by the Sixth Restrictive Rule of 
our Constitution. 

Third—In our opinion, the appropriation or subsidy in aid 
of the Advocate-Journal, which is not owned by The Book Con¬ 
cern, and for the maintenance and support of which said Concern 
is not legally responsible, is clearly prohibited by the Restrictive 
Rule above mentioned. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 23 

Report No. 21 

ELIGIBILITY AS LAY DELEGATES 

In the matter of the eligibility of Andraeas Ruppanner as lay 
delegate to the General Conference, 1908. 

Andraeas Ruppanner was elected lay delegate to the General 
Conference of 1908 by the Lay Electoral Conference of the 
Switzerland Conference, May 31, 1907. 

Until two years prior to his election he had been pastor of the 
church. He was a member of the Conference more than five 
years, but a lay member only two years. 

Paragraph 39, Section 5, of the Discipline, provides that lay 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


23 Journal , 1908, pp. 446, 447, 478, 479. 



134 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


members “having been lay members of the Church five years 
next preceding” shall be eligible to General Conference. 

The German translation of the Discipline, which German 
translation was followed in this case, omitted the word “lay” 
from said clause, so that it read that a member shall be eligible 
who has been “a member of the Church five years next preced¬ 
ing.” 

Under such a provision, Andraeas Ruppanner would have been 
eligible. 

As a result of the improper translation of this Section and 
Paragraph of the Discipline into German, the Conference and 
Andraeas Ruppanner have both been made to suffer because of a 
mistake in their copy of the Discipline, over which they had no 
control, and upon which copy they had good reason to rely and 
act. 

While this is to be very much regretted, nevertheless, your 
Committee find that, under the law as set forth in Paragraph 
39, Section 5, and under the facts submitted, Brother Andraeas 
Ruppanner was not eligible to become a lay delegate to the 
General Conference of 1908. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 24 

Report No. 22 

ADMINISTRATION OF BISHOP NEELY SUSTAINED 

In the matter of George P. Howard and Samuel P. Craver, 
of the South America Conference, relating to the questions aris¬ 
ing out of the administration of Bishop Neely, we respectfully 
submit the following: 

On the 22d day of February, 1908, Bishop T. B. Neely left 
Buenos Ayres for New York, via England, having closed the 
session of the Conference on that date. On March 3 the Rev. 
Samuel W. Siberts, Dean of the Theological School of the Con¬ 
ference, died. It appears that the Presiding Elder of the Buenos 
Ayres District, the Rev. George P. Howard, after consulting 
Samuel P. Craver, who had been appointed Presiding Elder of 
the Paraguay District, decided to appoint said Samuel P. Craver 
Dean of the Theological Seminary. It appears that the said 
Craver was not to be removed from the Presiding Eldership of 
the Paraguay District, but to assume the duties in the school 
immediately. On March 9, 1908, it appears that said George P. 
Howard wrote to Bishop T. B. Neely informing him of his 
action, and added, “All this, of course, is subject to approval or 
modification on your part,” whereupon Bishop Neely replied, 
April 18, in which reply he stated that he had written to the 
said George P. Howard immediately upon his first intelligence 


24 Journal , 1908, pp. 436, 479. 



DECISIONS OP 1908 


135 


of the death of the said Mr. Siberts, and directed the said George 
P. Howard to take general charge of the Theological Seminar} 1, 
and call to his assistance Mr. Meyers and Mr. Bauman, who were 
appointed professors; also Dr. McLaughlin and Dr. Thompson. 
It appears that Bishop Neely stated that Dr. Craver was abso¬ 
lutely needed in Paraguay, and that the work of the Presiding 
Eldership of Paraguay from Buenos Ayres would never do, for, 
even there, he was more than Presiding Elder. To make sure of 
this word reaching Mr. Howard, it appears that the Bishop sent 
a cablegram containing these words: “Craver, Paraguay.” It does 
not appear that Bishop Neely interfered in any way with the 
prerogative of the Presiding Elder, as set forth in Paragraph 
190, Sections 2 and 3. The action of the Bishop is sustained. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 25 

Report No. 23 

DECISION OF JUDICIAL CONFERENCE AFFIRMED 

Your Committee, having carefully considered the records 
on appeal in the case of Frank P. Blackmore, a member of the 
Nebraska Annual Conference, respectfully reports: 

That the said Frank P. Blackmore was charged with immoral, 
unchristian, and unministerial conduct. He was duly tried be¬ 
fore a Select Number at the annual session of said Conference, 
held in September, 1905. He was found guilty of the charges 
and was suspended from the ministry and membership of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. An appeal was then taken by him 
from the decision of the Annual Conference to the Judicial 
Conference, held December 5, 1905, Bishop McDowell presid¬ 
ing. At the Judicial Conference the findings of the Annual 
Conference Select Number were confirmed. The said Black- 
more then appealed to the General Conference from certain rul¬ 
ings made by Bishop McDowell at the Judicial Conference. 
These rulings and exceptions thereto are specifically set forth 
in the record on appeal. 

In our opinion, no serious errors of law have been committed 
therein, and the decision of the Judicial Conference should be 
affirmed and the appeal dismissed. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 26 

Report No. 24 

APPEAL OF CHURCH; RULINGS LACKING 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully reviewed the 
records on appeal in the case of the church at Chateaugay, 

26 Journal, 1908, pp. 436, 479, 480. 

28 Ibid., pp. 437, 480. 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 



136 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Northern New York Conference against Rufus R. Humphre}', 
respectfully reports: 

The said Rufus R. Humphrey, a member of the said church, 
was charged with insubordination and defiance. He was brought 
to trial before a Committee of nine duly appointed by the pastor 
in charge and found guilty under all specifications and expelled 
from the membership of the church. The said Humphrey then 
appealed to the District Triers of Appeals, and the decision of 
the Committee of nine was reversed. The church then appealed 
on points of law to the next Annual Conference. The rulings 
of the President of the Annual Conference are not included in 
the record on appeal and are not before this Committee. There¬ 
fore, in the opinion of your Committee, the appeal should be 
dismissed. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 27 

Report No. 25 

CHANGE OF HEARING OF AN APPEAL 

Chateaugay Church vs. Rufus R. Humphrey. 

By action of the General Conference, your Committee has 
been asked to answer the following questions: 

1. The right, in general, of a Bishop to change the hearing of 
an appeal from the District where the first trial was held to an¬ 
other District. 

2. If so, on what grounds? 

3. Did the above case have such grounds of appeal ? 

4. Was the ruling of the Presiding Elder, in refusing to set 
aside the decision of the Appellate Court, in harmony with the 
evidence and in harmony with our law? 

These questions we answer as follows: 

1. We find no provision in the Discipline authorizing the 
Bishop to change the hearing of an appeal of a member of the 
Church from one District to another. 

2. In answer to the question as to the right of the Presiding 
Elder, presiding in an appeal case, under 273 to deny the 
motion to set aside the decision of the Triers of the Appeals of 
members, we reply that he has such a right. 

3. The above-named case is disposed of in Report No. 24. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 28 

Report No. 26 

WITHDRAWAL UNDER CHARGES; CASE NOT REMANDED 

In the matter of the memorial of Charles W. Drees, of South 
America Annual Conference, relative to the case of Lino Abeledo, 


27 Journal, 1908, pp. 437, 481. 

28 Ibid., pp. 437, 481. 



DECISIONS OF 1908 


137 


sent to the Judiciary Committee by action of the General Confer¬ 
ence, we respectfully report: 

It appears from the memorial and record in the Minutes of 
said Annual Conference that the said Lino Abeledo, a member 
of said Annual Conference, was brought before a Committee of 
investigation charged with insubordination. The charges were 
entertained, a hearing was had, the charges were sustained, and 
said Abeledo was suspended from ministerial services and church 
privileges until the next annual session of said Conference. He 
thereupon sent the Presiding Elder a letter withdrawing from 
the ministry and membership of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. At the ensuing session of said Annual Conference the 
Presiding Elder moved that said Abeledo be allowed to with¬ 
draw, and that the entry in the Minutes of the Conference be: 
“Withdrawn under charges.” The motion prevailed, and the 
entry was so made in the Minutes of said Annual Conference. 
No charges of immorality were made against the said Abeledo. 
He now complains that a gross injustice was done him by such 
entry in the Mimites, and asks that the notation, “Withdrawn 
under charges,” be declared null and void, and that the case 
be remanded to said Conference for rehearing. 

Inasmuch as the charges and specifications, the action of the 
Committee of investigation, the action of the Annual Confer¬ 
ence, and all proceedings appear at length in the Minutes of the 
Annual Conference, so that there can be no misapprehension con¬ 
cerning the nature of the charge and the facts in the case, your 
Committee is of the opinion that no injustice has been done to 
said Abeledo, and that the prayer of the memorial be denied. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 29 

Report No. 27 

BISHOPS AND THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS 

In the matter referred to the Judiciary Committee by the 
Board of Bishops relating to the action of the General Confer¬ 
ence of 1904 and found in Volume 15, General Conference 
Journal, at page 492, under subdivision (d), which reads: 

“The Bishops are hereby authorized and directed, whenever 
specific charges of misteaching in any of our theological schools 
are made in writing by responsible parties, members or min¬ 
isters of our Church, to appoint a Committee of their own num¬ 
ber to investigate such charges, whose report, if adopted by 
the Bishops, shall be transmitted to the Trustees of the theo¬ 
logical school involved for proper action in the premises.” 

Your Committee begs leave to report as follows: 

In the opinion of the majority of the Committee, the Para¬ 
graph recited is unconstitutional and therefore void. A minority 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding ot 
Committee 


29 Journal , 1908, pp. 437, 481, 482. 



138 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


of the Committee hold that the power of the General Confer¬ 
ence to make the said rule is not limited by the Restrictive Rules 
and, therefore, the said Paragraph is not unconstitutional. 

All concur in the opinion that the provisions of said Para¬ 
graph are not in harmony with our general law relating to the 
duty of Bishops as Presidents of Annual Conferences and Judi¬ 
cial Conferences, while sitting to try accused persons, but is 
wholly inconsistent therewith and tends to prejudice the trial 
of such person by reason of an opinion formed and expressed, 
founded upon an ex parte investigation made by a Committee 
of the Board of Bishops, one of whom must, or may, preside at 
the trial. 

Your Committee further expresses the opinion that said Para¬ 
graph, if constitutional, insofar as it directs the Board of 
Bishops to cause an investigation to be made by a Committee 
of its own number and report the result thereof to the said 
Trustees, is so completely at variance with the other provisions 
of the act of which it constitutes a part, and with the general 
law of the Church relative to trials and investigations, that it 
may be regarded as directory only and not mandatory. 

Previous action did not necessitate the adoption of this re¬ 
port. Therefore, by request of the Chairman of the Committee, 
it was received and ordered entered on Journal, June l. 30 

Report No. 28 

DECISION OF JUDICIAL CONFERENCE AFFIRMED 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully examined the 
records on appeal in the case of W. F. Corkran and C. S. Baker, 
two members of the Wilmington Conference, charged with im¬ 
moral conduct, respectfully reports that it finds no serious errors 
of law therein. Your Committee is therefore of the opinion that 
the decisions of the Judicial Conference in these cases and each 
of them should be affirmed. 

Presented and adopted, June l. 31 

Report No. 29 

RULINGS OF BOARD OF BISHOPS 

The Rulings of the Bishops, as submitted to the Committee on 
Judiciary by the Secretary of the Board of Bishops and hereto 
appended, are approved, with the exception of the one num¬ 
bered “41,” which we find to be in error. 

To the Judiciary Committee, 

“Brethren: 

“The following are rulings on matters connected with the 

30 Journal , 1908, pp. 446, 482, 483. 

nibid., pp. 446, 483. 



DECISIONS OF 1908 


139 


administration of the Bishops, and approved by the Board of 
Bishops in its sessions during the quadrennium, and referred to 
in the Episcopal Address. 

"John M. Walden, 

Secretary.” 

[Forty-three Rulings follow, which had been considered by the 
Committee on Judiciary. 32 ] 

Presented, received, and entered on Journal , June l. 33 

During the afternoon of the closing session, on motion of 
Henry Wade Rogers, Chairman of the Committee on Judi¬ 
ciary, it was Authorized to deliver all papers in its posses¬ 
sion to the Chairmen of the ministerial delegations of the 
Conferences from which the papers had come, and to take 
their receipts for the same.” 34 This constituted a fitting 
conclusion to the arduous work of the Committee of 1908. 

32 These Rulings will be found in Part III, pp. 289-297. 

83 Journal, 1908, pp. 446, 483-491. 

“Ibid., pp. 437, 438. 


Conference 

action 



XIV 


Selection of 
Committee 


DECISIONS OF 1912 

A T the General Conference of 1912, meeting in Minne¬ 
apolis, the number and selection of the Committee on 
Judiciary were prescribed in Rule 37 of the printed 
Rules of Order. This provision was that 

The delegates of each General Conference District shall 
nominate from their number one member, and the Bishops shall 
nominate four, making the total number nineteen. 1 

Powers of the Committee.—On the fourth day of the ses¬ 
sion the Journal contains the following record: 

On motion of H. L. Jacobs, it was ordered that all appeals 
from Annual Conferences, from individual ministers, and from 
lay members, together with the records of all Judicial Confer¬ 
ences and such legal questions as the General Conference may 
desire to send to it, shall be referred to the Committee on Judi¬ 
ciary. 2 

Members of the Committee.—The election of members 
of the Committee by the General Conference Districts was 
announced by the Secretary of the Conference on the third 
day of the session. The additional members appointed by 
the Bishops were announced on the following day. The com¬ 
plete membership of this Committee for 1912 was apparently 
as follows: 

District 

1. J. I. Bartholomew, New England Southern. 

2. Henry Wade Rogers, New York East. 

3. H. C. Perkins, Wyoming. 

4. I. E. Robinson, West Virginia. 

5. J. M. Killits, Central Ohio. 

G. E. B. Burroughs, South Carolina. 

7. A. P. Camphor, Central Alabama. 

8. F. W. Green, Oklahoma. 

9. G. M. Spurlock, Nebraska. 

10. Christie Galeener, Illinois. 

1 Journal, 1912, p. 156. 

2 Ibid., p. 351. 

140 



DECISIONS OF 1912 


141 


11. H. A. Gobin, Northwest Indiana. 

12. C. A. Pollock, North Dakota. 

13. L. C. Fritsche, Central German. 

14. A. M. Drew, Southern California. 

15. C. E. Gibson, Columbia River. 

Additional Members 

T. H. Anderson, Baltimore. Naphtali Luccock, Saint Louis. 

W. W. Guth, California. R. T. Miller, Kentucky. 3 

Of this Committee, Henry Wade Rogers served as Chair¬ 
man, and H. C. Perkins as Secretary. 

Reports of the Committee.—During the session the fol¬ 
lowing thirty-three reports were presented by the Committee, 
and were acted upon as is separately indicated: 

Report No. 1 

COMPLAINT AGAINST PUBLISHING AGENTS 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully considered 
the complaint of George H. Dryer against Henry C. Jennings 
and Edwin R. Graham, Publishing Agents of the Western Meth¬ 
odist Book Concern, alleging official misconduct by them in 
preferring charges against said George H. Dryer in the Genesee 
Conference, respectfully reports: 

1. That said complaint, subscribed by said complainant and 
not supported by other documentary evidence, was referred to 
your Committee by this General Conference, as a memorial. 

2. That said complaint did not come to your Committee in 
the regular course of judicial procedure prescribed by the Disci¬ 
pline, and is not a part of the record in any case on appeal before 
your Committee. 

3. That, in the opinion of the Committee, no question of 
law is presented by said complainant for review and determina¬ 
tion, and your Committee is without jurisdiction in the matter. 
It therefore returns to the General Conference with this report 
said memorial containing said complaint. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 4 


3 Journal, 1912, pp. 93, 342, 343, 347. The enrollment of the Commit¬ 
tee in the list of Standing Committees {Journal, p. 93) omits the name of 
R. T. Miller, and adds the names of R. E. Gillum, Central Missouri, and 
J. N. Lucas, Saint Louis—making an additional member of the Com¬ 
mittee. 

4 Journal, 1912, pp. 499, 539. 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 



142 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Repobt No. 2 

JUDICIAL conference; no decisions presented 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully considered the 
records of the Judicial Conference in the case of Rev. Harkua 
Wilson, of the Central Provinces Mission Conference, India, 
respectfully reports that no decisions of questions of law are 
presented for consideration by the records, and therefore there 
are no errors of law calling for a reversal of the findings and 
judgment therein. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 5 

Report No. 3 

average grade in course of study 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully considered 
the record of the appeal by C. L. Smith, of East Ohio Confer¬ 
ence, from the decision of the presiding Bishop on the mean¬ 
ing of “average grade or grade in course of study," reports as 
follows: 

The question presented for consideration was raised on Para¬ 
graph 65, Section 5, Discipline of 1908, which reads as follows: 
“The examination shall be graded upon a scale of 100, and 
none below 70 per cent shall pass." 

Does this mean the average grade on course of study or the 
grade for any given study ? 

The Bishop decided, “It refers to the average grade," and 
from this decision an appeal was taken to the General Confer¬ 
ence. 

The law of the Church requires a minimum grade of 70 in 
every study which which an examination is taken. Without this 
grade no candidate can be advanced in his standing. This is 
clear from Paragraph 64, Section 1, Discipline of 1908, where 
this provision is distinctly referred to and interpreted, and 
wherein it is provided that certificates from theological semi¬ 
naries, universities, and colleges approved by our University 
Senate may be accepted by the Annual Conference; provided, 
(1) That each certificate shall distinctly show that the student 
has been a regular attendant on classroom instruction in the 
specified book; and (2) That he has passed a thorough examina¬ 
tion in the book, gaining a standing equivalent to that fixed in 
Paragraph 65, Section 5. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 6 


6 Journal , 1912, pp. 499, 500, 539. 
8 Ibid., pp. 499, 500, 539, 540. 



DECISIONS OF 1912 


143 


Report No. 4 

APPOINTMENT OF DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT 

Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred for its 
opinion a resolution concerning the power of a Bishop to ap¬ 
point a Superintendent, in an Annual Conference in which the 
number of Districts has been reduced, to preside over a District 
to which there have been transferred a number of charges from 
the District over which he has presided for six consecutive years 
immediately preceding such appointment, having carefully con¬ 
sidered the same and all the facts relating thereto, respectfully 
reports as follows: 

1. That in the Annual Conference in question, and upon its 
recommendation, the number of Districts had been reduced from 
six to four, and the names of all the Districts but two had been 
changed. 

2. That the Bishop presiding in the Annual Conference ap¬ 
pointed a Superintendent to preside over a District containing 
more than fifty pastoral charges, fourteen of which charges had 
been transferred to that District from the District over which 
the same Superintendent had already presided for six consecu¬ 
tive years immediately preceding such appointment, the remain¬ 
ing charges on said District having been taken from other Dis¬ 
tricts. 

3. That the fourteen pastoral charges thus transferred con¬ 
stituted a minority of the charges on the District from which 
the transfer had been made, and also a minority of the charges 
on the District to which they had been transferred. 

4. The question presented for consideration is whether the 
new District over which said Superintendent was appointed to 
preside is the same District as the District from which the 
fourteen pastoral charges were transferred, within the meaning 
of Paragraph 194, Section 3, of the Discipline of 1908, which 
provides that the Bishop shall not allow a District Superintend¬ 
ent to preside in the same District more than six consecutive 
years, nor more than six years in any consecutive twelve. 

5. In the opinion of your Committee, the District over which 
said Superintendent was appointed to preside was not the same 
District from which the fourteen pastoral charges had been 
taken and over which he had presided as Superintendent for six 
consecutive years. A new District had been created, and the 
Bishop had power to appoint such Superintendent to preside 
over the same. 

6. Your Committee deems it proper however to say, in order 
to avoid misunderstanding, that if so considerable a part of an 
old District should be incorporated in a new District as to make 
the latter substantially the same as the former, then the new 
District ought to be regarded as the same District £s the old ? 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 



144 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


and the time a District Superintendent presided in the old 
District should be counted in determining the period he may 
serve in the new under Paragraph 194, Section 3, in case of 
his assignment from the one to the other District. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 7 

Report Ho. 5 

DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TO CONFERENCE CLAIMANTS 

Presented and not adopted. May 28. 8 

Report Ho. 6 

APPEAL ALREADY HEARD 

Your Committee on Judiciary to which were referred cer¬ 
tain papers in the case of R. B. Mansell, Pittsburgh Confer¬ 
ence, having carefully considered the same, respectfully reports: 

1. That said case was heard and determined by the General 
Conference of 1892; was again presented and dismissed by the 
General Conference of 1900 on the grounds that the issues in¬ 
volved had already been determined; and is therefore res ad - 
judicata, so far as this General Conference may act. 

2. The papers submitted to the Committee are not part of 
the papers in a case on appeal, and did not come before the 
Committee in the regular course of judicial procedure, and 
your Committee is without jurisdiction to act in the matter. 

This decision shall he printed in the Minutes of the Pittsburgh 
Conference . 

Presented, amended as indicated by italics, and adopted, May 
28. 9 

Report Ho. 7 

FINANCES OF WOMAN'S FOREIGN MISSIONARY SOCIETY 

Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred the peti¬ 
tion of the Chicago Horthern District of the Horthwestern 
Branch of the Woman’s Foreign Missionary Society of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, dated April 19, 1912, submits the 
following report: 

In said petition an answer to the following question was 
asked, namely, 

“Whether auxiliaries regularly organized under the Constitu¬ 
tion and By-laws of the Woman’s Foreign Missionary Society 
are to be operated, conducted, and controlled according to the 


7 Journal , 1912, pp. 499, 500, 540, 541. 

8 Ibid., pp. 500, 501. For report, see Part II, pp. 263-265. 

9 Ibid,., pp. 501, 541. 



DECISIONS OF 1912 


145 


Constitution and By-laws of the Woman’s Foreign Missionary 
Society in the receipt and disbursement of their finances, wherein 
they conform to and do not in any wise conflict with the Disci¬ 
pline of the Methodist Episcopal Church; or whether the Official 
Board or Quarterly Conference of a local Methodist Episcopal 
Church in said Chicago Northern District has the right and 
privilege of supervision and control of the finances of the 
Woman’s Foreign Missionary Society, duly organized and carry¬ 
ing on the regular missionary work in said Chicago Northern 
District.” 

In answer to said question your Committee states that it is 
of the opinion that an Auxiliary Society of the Woman’s Foreign 
Missionary Society, regularly organized as suggested in said 
petition, has absolute control of the receipt, management, and 
disbursement of its finances; and that neither the Official Board 
nor Quarterly Conference had power to act in the premises. 

The Constitution of the Church under Division III provides 
for its organization and government. Paragraph 46 of the 
Discipline (1908) gives the General Conference full power to 
make rules and regulations except in the cases specified in Sec¬ 
tions 4 to 6, inclusive (page 43), none of which apply here. 

Part VIII of the Discipline provides for the organization of 
“Institutions, Boards, and Societies,” including the Woman’s 
Foreign Missionary Society. Chapter III, of Part VIII, of the 
Discipline (Paragraphs 245 to 246 inclusive) defines the work 
and authority of the Woman’s Foreign Missionary Society, which 
is “to be governed and regulated by its Constitution.” It is also 
required to work “in harmony with and under the supervision 
of the authorities of the Board of Foreign Missions,” etc. Para¬ 
graph 389 of the Discipline provides that, “The Funds of the 
Society shall not be raised by collections or subscriptions taken 
during any of the regular Church services, nor in any Sunday 
school, but shall be raised by such methods as the Constitution 
of the Society shall provide,” etc., clearly indicating that the 
work and finances of the auxiliaries of the Woman’s Foreign 
Missionary Society shall be kept separate from the other financial 
interests of the Church. 

If, without violating the plain provisions of Paragraph 389 
of the Discipline, an Auxiliary Society of the Woman’s Foreign 
Missionary Society of its own volition desires to enter into any 
joint plan of the local church for the distribution and manage¬ 
ment of its funds, which shall in no manner divert the same 
from their designed purpose, it has such right; but the Auxiliary 
Society cannot be compelled so to do by the Official Board or 
Quarterly Conference of the local church. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 10 

10 Journal , 1912, pp. 501, 541, 542. 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 



146 REPOETS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Repoet No. 8 

EIGHT OF LAY CONFEBENCE TO PEOPOSE AMENDMENTS 

Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred the 
resolution instructing it to inquire into the question whether 
members of Lay Electoral Conferences have equal rights with 
members of Annual Conferences to propose amendments to the 
Constitution of the Church and submit an opinion thereon, 
having carefully considered the same, reports as follows: 

Article XI, of Chapter II, Division III, of the Constitution 
of the Church, better known as Paragraph 47 of the Discipline 
(1908), prescribes two ways, and only two ways, in which said 
Constitution may be amended, namely, 

1. The concurrent recommendation of two thirds of all the 
members of the several Annual Conferences present and voting, 
and of two thirds of all the members of the Lay Electoral Con¬ 
ferences present and voting, shall suffice to authorize the next 
ensuing General Conference by a two-thirds vote to alter or 
amend any of the provisions of the Constitution excepting 
Article X, Section 1. 

2. Whenever such alteration or amendment shall have been 
first recommended by a General Conference by a two-thirds 
vote, then, so soon as two thirds of all the members of the several 
Annual Conferences present and voting and two thirds of all 
the members of the Lay Electoral Conferences present and voting 
shall have concurred therein, such alteration or amendment shall 
take effect. 

Under the Constitution of the Church, the General Conference 
is composed of ministerial and lay delegates (Paragraph 37) 
in equal numbers (Paragraph 39, Section 4), whose duty it is 
to confer and deliberate together as one body, except in cases 
specified in Paragraph 45. 

No powers are granted to ministerial delegates to the General 
Conference which are not also granted to lay delegates. All 
members of the General Conference, whether ministers or lay¬ 
men, have an equal right to recommend alterations or amend¬ 
ments to the Constitution and to secure the submission of the 
same to the Annual and Lay Electoral Conferences; and the 
right to recommend changes in the Constitution includes the 
right to propose and vote for such changes. 

Traveling preachers are organized into Annual Conferences, 
whose sessions they are required to attend (Paragraphs 36 and 
74), and amendments to the Constitution may be proposed and 
voted upon by the members thereof at any session. 

Paragraph 39, Section 1 provides that “A Lay Electoral Con¬ 
ference shall be constituted within the bounds of each Annual 
Conference quadrennially, or whenever duly called by a Gen¬ 
eral Conference, for the purpose of electing lay delegates to the 


DECISIONS OF 1912 


147 


General Conference, and for the purpose of voting on constitu¬ 
tional changes.” 

Paragraph 39, Section 2 further provides that “The Lay 
Electoral Conference shall assemble at the seat of the Annual 
Conference on the first Friday of the session immediately pre¬ 
ceding the General Conference, unless the General Conference 
shall provide otherwise.” 

Construing all Paragraphs of the Discipline above stated, 
your Committee is of the opinion that members of Annual and 
Lay Electoral Conferences have equal rights to recommend 
changes in the Constitution of the Church, and that the right 
to recommend such changes includes the right to propose as well 
as to vote for the same. 

It should be noted, however, that, while members of Annual 
Conferences have the opportunity to recommend changes in the 
Constitution at their sessions each year, members of Lay Elec¬ 
toral Conferences only have such opportunity on one day in 
four years, and at a time which practically precludes them 
from originating amendments to the Constitution, if such amend¬ 
ments must be submitted to the General Conference next ensuing 
after the quadrennial meeting. For no amendment to the Con¬ 
stitution can be adopted without the concurrent recommendation 
of two thirds of all the members of the several Annual Confer¬ 
ences present and voting and two thirds of the members of the 
Lay Electoral Conferences present and voting; and this neces¬ 
sarily delays the submission of constitutional questions to the 
General Conference until after two thirds of all the members of 
the Lay Electoral Conferences present and voting have had 
such opportunity, as well as two thirds of all the members of the 
Annual Conferences present and voting. 

Your Committee is therefore of the opinion that the Gen¬ 
eral Conference next ensuing, after the concurrent recommenda¬ 
tions of two thirds of all the members of the several Annual Con¬ 
ferences and Lay Electoral Conferences are submitted to it, is 
authorized to alter or amend the provisions of the Constitution; 
and that this authority is not limited to the General Confer¬ 
ence next ensuing after the quadrennial meeting of the Lay 
Electoral Conferences, otherwise the members of the Lay Elec¬ 
toral Conferences would not have an equal opportunity with 
members of the Annual Conferences to originate such amend¬ 
ments. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 11 

Report No. 9 

CHANGING FIELD OF MISSIONARY BISHOP 

The C o mmi ttee on Judiciary having been instructed to pass 

11 Journal, 1912, pp. 502, 543, 544. 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 



148 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


upon the question, “Whether it is within the power of the Gen¬ 
eral Conference to take from, add to, or otherwise change the 
field under the supervision of a Missionary Bishop from that 
for which he was originally elected,” reports as follows: 

It is the opinion of the Committee on Judiciary that it is 
within the power of the General Conference so to do. There 
is nothing in the Restrictive Rules which in any way limits 
the power of the General Conference over this matter; provided 
that the territory so changed be in a foreign mission. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 12 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Report No. 10 

RULES OF GENERAL DEACONESS BOARD 

Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred the 
memorial of the chief officers of the Woman’s Home Missionary 
Society, requesting the Committee on Judiciary to approve the 
rules and regulations made by the General Deaconess Board dur¬ 
ing the past quadrennium, having carefully considered the 
same, respectfully reports that no questions of law seem to be 
presented by the documents submitted upon which it can act at 
this time. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 13 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Report No. 11 

judicial conference; no errors in record 

Your Committee on Judiciary having carefully considered the 
documents submitted in the case of Joseph T. Herson, of the 
Philadelphia Conference, reports as follows: 

Joseph T. Herson, a member of the Philadelphia Conference, 
was tried before a Select Number of that Conference and the 
charges against him were substained. On appeal to the Judicial 
Conference, held in the city of New York, October 23-26, 1911, 
the finding of the Select Number was reversed. The Church 
then appealed from the judgment of the Judicial Conference to 
the General Conference. 

An examination of the record of the Judicial Conference dis¬ 
closes no errors of law. The Committee cannot review the find¬ 
ing of the Judicial Conference on the facts. The proceedings 
can be reviewed by us only on questions of law, and no ques¬ 
tions of law are reserved in the record of the Judicial Con¬ 
ference. To the record of that tribunal this Committee must 
look for its determination of the case. 


11 Journal, 1912, pp. 502, 544, 545. 
"Ibid., pp. 502, 545. 



DECISIONS OF 1912 


149 


The judgment of the Judicial Conference must therefore be 
affirmed. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 14 Conference 

J action 

Report No. 12 

LOCAL PREACHER IN LAY ELECTORAL CONFERENCE 

Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred the Question 
petition of William F. Rice, District Superintendent, Central referred 
District, Chile Conference, asking for a decision concerning the 
right of a local preacher admitted on trial in the Annual Con¬ 
ference the preceding year to sit in the Lay Electoral Confer¬ 
ence, having carefully considered the same, submits the fol¬ 
lowing report: 

A Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the Chile An¬ 
nual Conference elected as its lay delegate to the Lay Electoral 
Conference of 1912 its pastor, who was a local preacher who had 
been admitted on trial in the Annual Conference the preceding 
year; so that he was in the Studies of the First Year in the 
Conference course. 

The District Superintendent at the Quarterly Conference 
which ratified the election ruled that the brother was not a mem¬ 
ber of the Annual Conference, but was a layman within the 
meaning of the Discipline, and was therefore eligible for mem¬ 
bership in the Lay Electoral Conference. 

The right of this brother to sit in the Lay Electoral Confer¬ 
ence was challenged on the ground that he was a preacher on 
trial in the Annual Conference, and had no right to vote as a 
layman. 

The presiding Bishop was called upon to decide the point 
in the Lay Electoral Conference, and gave a verbal ruling that 
as a Preacher on Trial in the Annual Conference the brother 
had no right to sit in the Lay Electoral Conference; and he was 
therefore excluded from the Lay Electoral Conference. 

The General Conference of 1872, at which time laymen were Finding of 
admitted to membership in that body, adopted the following Committee 
resolution: “That, in all matters connected with the election of 
lay delegates, the word ‘laymen’ must be understood to include 
all members of the Church who are not members of the Annual 
Conferences” (General Conference Journal, 1872, page 442). 

The resolution above quoted has never been repealed. Not 
all preachers are members of the Annual Conference. The dis¬ 
tinction is made between those who are on trial for admission 
and those who have been admitted to full membership, Para¬ 
graphs 36 and 74. 

Paragraph 148, Section 2, provides that, “Taking on trial is 


14 Journal , 1912, pp. 502, 545. 



150 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


entirely different from admitting a preacher into full member¬ 
ship. One on trial may be either admitted or rejected without 
doing him any wrong; otherwise it would be no trial at all.” 

A Preacher on Trial cannot be admitted into full member¬ 
ship in an Annual Conference until he has complied with the 
requirements of the Discipline relating thereto (Paragraphs 152 
and 153), and he cannot participate in the proceedings of the 
Annual Conference until he becomes a member thereof. 

The brother in question was therefore not a member of the 
Annual Conference, and, being on trial for admission, was only 
in process of becoming a member thereof. 

The Discipline prescribes a different procedure in the case 
of the trial of a member of an Annual Conference (Paragraphs 
232 and 233) and in the case of a Preacher on Trial in an An¬ 
nual Conference, who is in reference to amenability and appeal 
considered as a local preacher (Paragraph 248), and tried in the 
same manner as a local preacher (Paragraphs 249 to 255). 

Your Committee is therefore of the opinion that the local 
preacher in this case, who was on trial for admission to mem¬ 
bership in said Annual Conference, was a layman, within the 
meaning of the Discipline, and, if in good standing and of re¬ 
quisite age and membership in the Church, was eligible to elec¬ 
tion as a member of the Lay Electoral Conference, and the 
verbal ruling of the Bishop is not sustained. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 15 

Report No. 13 

MARIE CHURCH 

Your Committee on Judiciary have carefully considered a 
memorial from the members and the pastor of the Marie Meth¬ 
odist Episcopal Church of Chicago, which was referred to us 
by the General Conference on May 11, 1912. 

The memorial relates to the failure of Trinity Methodist 
Episcopal Church of Chicago to obey the order made by the 
General Conference which met in Baltimore in 1908, and which 
Conference considered the claim made by Marie Church that 
it was entitled to have conveyed to it the property which for 
many years it had occupied as a place of worship, but from 
the possession of which it has been excluded for a number of 
years by the action of Trinity Church, which held the legal 
title to the property. 

The Committee on Judiciary reported in 1908 in favor of the 
claim made by Marie Church, saying: “Trinity Church should 
right the wrong by restoring the property to the possession of 


“ Journal, 1912, pp. 502, 545-547. 



DECISIONS OE 1912 


151 


Marie Church and by executing all papers necessary to perfect 
its title beyond controversy in the future, and it is so ordered.” 
This report was adopted. (See Journal , 1908, pp. 426 and 
462.) 

The memorial presented to the Conference and referred to us 
as aforesaid states that Trinity Church has not complied with 
the order made by the General Conference in 1908. The lan¬ 
guage of the memorial is: “Trinity Church, however, through 
her Trustees, continues to repudiate all our rights and to rebel 
against and defy the General Conference, and demands that 
we as a church shall dissolve and shall surrender our affidavit 
of organization as a corporation, and request the Bishop to dis¬ 
solve our Quarterly Conference. 

“We have been greatly embarrassed in trying to do our work, 
since the action of the General Conference of 1908, by Trinity’s 
attitude and the costs and burdens of litigation, as well as by 
the natural difficulties of our mission field. Our only hope now 
lies in some action by your body harmonious with that of the 
Baltimore Conference, which may lead Trinity to surrender to 
us, as it should do, what was not only intended from the first 
to be our church home and our property, but a means of sub¬ 
sistence from the rentals of the stores in the property, as our 
work requires means far beyond what can be raised on the field 
in the ordinary way. 

“Because of these things we come again to you and memorial¬ 
ize you, in order that we may be relieved, and that the au¬ 
thority of the Methodist Episcopal Church may not be held in 
contempt and her property in general may not be diverted from 
the uses originally designed, or be put in jeopardy, and that 
order and discipline shall be maintained in the Church, and 
that the loyal and useful Marie Methodist Episcopal Church 
shall not be lost to Methodism.” 

The material facts as disclosed by the records and papers 
presented are substantially as follows: 

1. 1. That in 1883 Trinity Church organized a Mission, 
which afterward developed into the Marie Church. 

2. That in 1884 Mr. Harlow N. Higinbotham, acting as one 
of the Trustees of Trinity Church, undertook, along with the 
other Trustees of Trinity Church, to obtain aid for said Mission 
in order to furnish it with a suitable place for public worship. 
Large sums of money were donated for the accomplishment of 
this purpose, and upon the understanding that the real estate 
in controversy, the legal title to which had been taken in the 
name of Harlow N. Higinbotham by a deed of conveyance, dated 
February 23, 1884, would be devoted to the same purpose. 

3. That in April, 1884, Mr. Higinbotham and members of 
Trinity Church applied to the First Methodist Episcopal Church 
of Chicago for aid for the Mission, and represented that the 


Question 

referred 


152 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


real estate now in controversy would be given for the use of 
said Mission. 

4. That the Trustees of the First Church, having considered 
the matter, adopted the following resolution on April 25, 1884, 
namely: 

“Resolved, That the treasurer of this corporation be and is 
hereby ordered to pay toward the construction of the Went¬ 
worth Avenue and Bushnell Street Mission building [now Marie 
Church] under the patronage of Trinity Methodist Episcopal 
Church of this city, $10,000, $5,000 of said amount to be paid so 
soon as it may be required for building said Mission building, 
and the balance to be paid within the year 1885, provided Mr. 
H. N. Higinbotham, who has purchased the lots for the said 
building, do execute a contract in writing that the lots on which 
said building is erected shall be conveyed to this corporation 
within three years, free from incumbrance, to be held by this 
corporation until there is a legally incorporated Methodist Epis¬ 
copal Church to take and hold the same; then to be conveyed by 
this corporation, with the usual conditions of deeds given by this 
corporation, to said church. This donation is influenced by the 
liberality of Mr. H. N. Higinbotham.” 

5. That this action of the Trustees of the First Church was 
communicated to the Official Board of Trinity Church by the 
Committee which it had appointed to apply to the Board of 
Trustees of the First Church, which resolution was entered on 
the records of the Official Board of Trinity Church. The record 
then proceeded as follows: 

“The Committee recommended that the very liberal donation 
of the lot (purchased by him at a cost of $7,500) by Brother 
Higinbotham, and the ten thousand dollars ($10,000) appro¬ 
priated by the Clark Street board, be accepted, with hearty 
thanks. On motion, the report and recommendation of the 
Committee were adopted.” 

The record also discloses that a Committee was appointed to 
obtain plans and specifications for the erection of the proposed 
Mission church building, and that subscriptions were taken in 
the Board toward the building of the Mission church, with the 
view of raising $10,000 in addition to the $10,000 appro¬ 
priated by the First Church, and that $6,200 was subscribed, 
and that among the subscribers to this fund is entered the 
name of H. N. Higinbotham. 

6. That a building was subsequently erected upon the prop¬ 
erty in controversy for the use of the Mission, and upon its 
completion the Mission entered into possession thereof under 
the name of Marie Methodist Episcopal Church, and the build¬ 
ing was dedicated as a church. 

7. That Mr. Higinbotham never executed a written contract 
as provided for in the resolution adopted by the Trustees of 


DECISIONS OF 1912 


153 


First Church, as above set forth, and never transferred the prop¬ 
erty to the First Church nor to the Marie Church, but trans¬ 
ferred the title to Trinity Church, and in a letter transmitting 
the deed to the Board of Trustees of Trinity Church, dated 
March 12, 1885, he said: 

“I beg to inclose deed of the Wentworth Avenue and Bushnell 
Street lots on which we are to build the new Mission. At the 
time I made the proposition to give these lots, I supposed they 
were to be deeded to Trinity Trustees; subsequently I learned 
that the Clark Street (First Church) Board preferred that the 
deed should be made out to them, and I was ready to make it 
when I was called upon by Messrs. Busby and Clancy, who 
advised me to make it to the Trustees of Trinity. I do not wish 
either Clark Street (First Church) or the Trinity Board to 
understand that I am at all captious about the matter, and I am 
willing to make a deed to Clark Street (First Church) Board if 
they prefer, and if the two Boards agree that it shall be so made, 
in which event you may hold the present deed unrecorded and 
a new one can be executed accordingly. If, however, this deed 
shall be accepted, I think it would be well for the Clark Street 
(First Church) Board to rescind its former action.” 

8. That, when Marie Church had become incorporated and 
competent to take title to itself, it called upon Trinity Church 
to recognize the trust character of the title it had received from 
Mr. Higinbotham and to make conveyance thereof according 
to the spirit and intent of the agreement under which the dona¬ 
tion of $10,000 had been made by the First Church; but its 
demand was refused. Thereafter, and after much unavailing 
effort to bring about a settlement by amicable efforts, Marie 
Church brought an action in the courts of Illinois to have 
the trust established and the title transferred to it. The action 
was based upon the oral understanding of the parties, the written 
evidence of the agreement specified above having been for¬ 
gotten or overlooked. Trinity Church having appeared, made 
the defense that under the laws of Illinois the alleged trust 
agreement could not be enforced by the courts, not having been 
reduced to writing as required by the statute of frauds. The 
case went to the Supreme Court of the State, which sustained 
the objection and dismissed the bill. (Marie M. E. Church vs. 
Trinity M. E. Church, 205 Ill. 601.) 

9. That thereafter Marie Church brought the case to the Gen¬ 
eral Conference of 1908, and the order was made as herein¬ 
before set forth, the disobedience to which has led to the sub¬ 
mission of the present memorial. 

10. That thereafter Trinity Church, having failed to comply 
with the order made by the General Conference of 1908 re¬ 
quiring that church to transfer the property in controversy to 
Marie Church, the latter church again went into the courts of 


Question 

referred 


154 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Illinois and asked that the courts should enter a decree estab¬ 
lishing the trust and requiring the transfer of the title. In 
this suit Marie Church relied upon the written evidence as to 
the agreement already referred to, and which had come to light 
since the first suit, which had been dismissed in the manner 
before mentioned because there was only oral evidence of the 
agreement of the parties. In addition, Marie Church relied on 
the action of the General Conference. The Circuit Court re¬ 
ferred the case to a Master to take the evidence and report there¬ 
on. The Master reported that the written evidence was a 
sufficient writing to comply with the requirements of the statute 
of frauds. The Circuit Court took the same view in an elaborate 
opinion, in which the Court said: 

“In view of the provisions of the law above quoted, limiting 
the powers of First Church to make donations, of the resolu¬ 
tions adopted by it, the language of the letter of Mr. Higin- 
botham, and the resolutions of Trinity Church accepting the 
donations, it seems evident to me that Trinity Church took the 
title to the property charged with a trust, and that the resolu¬ 
tion of Trinity Church above noted in connection with the 
resolution of First Church, the deed of conveyance, and the 
letter of Mr. Higinbotham fully satisfies the requirements of 
the statute of frauds that all express trusts must be in writing.” 

The Court decreed that Trinity Church should convey to 
Marie Church the property in controversy. 

Trinity Church appealed from this decision to the Supreme 
Court of Illinois. That Court reversed the decree and dis¬ 
missed the bill. The decision was based upon the theory that 
the former judgment of the Supreme Court was conclusive on 
the parties, and that the question was res adjudicata, the parties 
to the controversy and the subject matter of the two suits being 
identical. The Court also declared that the newly discovered 
written evidence was not sufficient to satisfy the statute of 
frauds and did not, therefore, make Trinity Church a Trustee 
of the title for Marie Church. 

II. Thereupon Marie Chapel brought the case to this Gen¬ 
eral Conference for such relief as it may be possible to grant. 

Attention is called to the fact that this case comes here on 
the memorial of the Marie Church calling attention to the 
decision and order of the General Conference of 1908, and of 
the failure of Trinity Church to comply therewith, and asking 
for such further assistance as this Conference may be able to 
render. 

There is no memorial from Trinity Church explaining why it 
has failed to obey the order made by the General Conference, 
or pointing out any errors therein, or asking relief therefrom. 

It is to be said, however, that, on the reference of the memorial 
of Marie Church to this Committee, we gave notice of a hearing 


DECISIONS OF 1912 


155 


to the President of the Board of Trustees of Trinity Church, 
and he, as well as the representatives of Marie Church, appeared 
before us and made their respective statements. We failed, how¬ 
ever, to learn from the statements then made of any adequate 
reason for the failure of Trinity Church to obey the General 
Conference order. 

Your Committee is of the opinion that the action taken in 
this case by the General Conference of 1908 should be re¬ 
garded as conclusive upon the parties and upon this Conference 
as to the question then determined. The doctrine res adjudicata 
is as applicable in the courts of the Church as in those of the 
State. That doctrine is that, if an action be brought and the 
merits of a question be considered and determined between the 
parties and a final judgment be obtained by either party, the 
parties are concluded and cannot again have the same matter 
passed upon in another action. The doctrine rests on two 
maxims of the law. These are: (1) A man should not be twice 
vexed for the same matter; (2) it is for the public good that 
there be an end of litigation. For these reasons this General 
Conference should accept the action of the General Conference 
of 1908 as conclusive of the question that in the courts of the 
Church it is the duty of Trinity Church to transfer the title to 
the property in controversy to Marie Church, and that the order 
then made that such transfer should be made is not now open 
to reconsideration. If this be so, the only matter now to be 
determined is what steps this General Conference can and 
should take to enforce the order made in 1908. But before 
passing to a consideration of that question it seems to us proper 
to briefly refer to some other features of the case. 

The case now presented to the General Conference, and 
which this Committee is called to report on, does not involve the 
question whether the last decision made by the Supreme Court 
of Illinois in the controversy between Marie Church and Trinity 
Church was correct in holding that a technical trust did not 
exist under the laws of Illinois, and that the civil courts would 
not compel a transfer of the title to Marie Church. 

Whether that decision was right or wrong is not now open 
to inquiry either here or elsewhere. We must accept it as 
conclusive, so far as the legal and equitable rights of the parties 
are concerned in the courts of the State. It does not by any 
means follow, however, that because Marie Church has no right 
in the civil courts to compel a transfer of the property in con¬ 
troversy it has no rights in this property which the General 
Conference can recognize. 

In important particulars the courts of the Church and the 
courts of the State differ in the principles which they administer 
and in the methods of procedure by which they are governed. 
That such a difference exists is not at all remarkable. It has 


Finding of 
Committee 


156 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


existed for centuries in England, from which our jurisprudence 
has been derived. The difference between the courts of the 
Church and the courts of the State is no more distinct than 
is the difference which exists between the courts of law and 
the courts of equity in the system of State courts. Under the 
State system a party who would not be entitled to any relief 
whatever in a court of law might be granted on the same state 
of facts the most complete and adequate relief in a court of 
equity. In like manner a party who has no relief in the courts 
of the State may not on that account be remediless in the 
courts of the Church. 

It is clearly within the province of the General Conference, 
sitting as the highest court of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
to grant relief to a party who because of legal technicalities can 
obtain no relief in the State courts. 

The General Conference is not concluded by the statute of 
frauds, any more than it is by the statute of limitations. The 
General Conference should not recognize the statute of limita¬ 
tions as a sufficient explanation of the failure to perform an 
otherwise valid obligation. No more should it, in our opinion, 
accept as a valid explanation of the failure to carry into effect 
an otherwise valid trust the fact that the agreement creating it 
rested in parol and not in such written evidence as the statute 
of frauds made necessary in the civil courts. 

We call attention to the fact that the decision made by the 
Judiciary Committee in 1908 was not based on the legal 
technicalities of the case. That Committee in its report made 
that fact plain—it expressly said: “Without attempting to pass 
upon the merely technical legal rights, if any, growing out of 
the failure of the suit brought by Marie Church in the civil 
courts, we hold that the claim of Trinity Church to own said 
property and to exclude Marie Church therefrom, and its assump¬ 
tion of authority to lease the same to a church of another de¬ 
nomination, is unfounded, inequitable, and contrary to good 
conscience and the plain teaching of God’s Word.” ( Journal , 
1908, page 466.) 

This fact was also clearly brought out in what was said by 
a member of the Judiciary Committee, Judge Weaver, of the 
Supreme Court of Iowa, in the discussion which took place in 
the General Conference when the report was adopted. He said: 
“When Trinity Church came into court, what did it say? As 
lawyers say, they demurred. They said, ‘Even if it be true 
that we did agree to this trust agreement, yet, as it was not put 
into writing, this Court cannot enforce it.’ And under the 
laws of the State of Illinois the Court had to say so. I under¬ 
take to say that that was one of the technical rights which a 
Christian Church ought not to be permitted to assert or claim 
in a Methodist General Conference. 


DECISIONS OF 1912 


157 


"If a man is sued upon an account, or a promissory note, 
which has been due more than six years, or ten years in some 
States, and he may under the statute come in and say, ‘You have 
waited too long. It is true I owe that note, but you have waited 
too long and I won’t pay a cent/ that is a legal right; but it is 
not the right of a Christian or a Christian Church to make that 
plea; and so I say in regard to this claim of the decree of court 
as bearing upon this trust agreement” (Daily Christian Advo¬ 
cate, June 1, 1908, page 7). 

While we regard the case as closed as to the questions in con¬ 
troversy which were passed upon by the General Conference of 
1908, we feel free to state that, if the decision then made were 
not to be regarded as conclusive upon us, we find no reason which 
leads us to believe that error was committed in making the order 
which the General Conference made when it directed that 
Trinity Church should transfer the title to the property in 
controversy to Marie Church. 

Trinity Church, through a representative who appeared be¬ 
fore the Judiciary Committee of 1908, contended that it had 
not sufficient notice of the appeal taken to the General Con¬ 
ference of that year. This contention was held to be not well 
taken, but Trinity Church has since continued to reassert the in¬ 
sufficiency of the notice. It is sufficient to say that, after the ap¬ 
peal was taken to the General Conference of 1908, and while it 
was pending, it appeared that the Board of Trustees of the Rock 
River Annual Conference wrote a letter to the Board of Trustees 
of Trinity Church, submitting certain propositions for the ad¬ 
justment and settlement of all disputes respecting the title 
to the property in controversy. 

The Board of Trustees of Trinity Church, on January 28, 
1908, answered the said letter, and among other things said: 

“The Board has carefully considered the propositions therein 
referred to, and is unwilling to comply with your suggestions, 
first, for the reason that the question of jurisdiction has arisen. 
From the Minutes of the Sixty-eighth Session of the Rock River 
Annual Conference, page 35, it appears that the whole case has 
been appealed from the decision of the presiding Bishop to the 
General Conference. In other words, if this record is correct, 
it does not occur to us that a lesser body than the General Con¬ 
ference can now deal with this matter pending its consideration 
by the General Conference.” 

In view of this correspondence, carried on while the appeal 
was pending before the General Conference of 1908, and three 
months before that General Conference assembled, it is evident 
that Trinity Church was clearly estopped from denial that it 
had no notice or no sufficient notice of that appeal. It could not 
take advantage of the appeal, when it suited its purpose, to deny 
the jurisdiction of the Trustees of the Rock River Conference, 


Finding of 
Committee 


158 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


and then repudiate the appeal when it suited its purpose to 
ignore the jurisdiction of the General Conference. 

Although the order of 1908 has not been complied with, the 
Bishops presiding in the Rock River Conference have regularly 
appointed ministers in charge of Trinity Church. This, it has 
been suggested, they have done on the ground that the General 
Conference, while ordering Trinity Church to transfer the 
property, did not attach any penalty to the failure of that 
Church to obey the order. It is within the province of a Bishop 
presiding in an Annual Conference to strike an insubordinate 
church from the list of Conference appointments. That power 
has been exercised and the right to do so sustained by action of 
the General Conference of 1864. (See Journal, pages 357 and 
358.) 

It is the duty of Bishops to maintain the authority of the 
General Conference, and when a church is in a state of in¬ 
subordination and refuses to obey the orders of the General Con¬ 
ference a Bishop presiding in the Annual Conference to which 
that church belongs should leave such church off the list of 
Conference charges and make no appointment of a pastor in 
charge; and he should direct that its name should be omitted 
from the list in the official Minutes, so long as it continues in 
disobedience to the constituted authorities. It would be a seri¬ 
ous mistake not to enforce discipline in the Church. John 
Wesley fully appreciated this, as is shown by the manner in 
which, in 1782, he dealt with the Birstal preachers. He was 
determined to maintain discipline. In requiring one of the 
number to be put “out of our Society” his words were: “The 
first loss is the best. Better forty members should be lost than 
our discipline be lost” (Neely’s The Governing Conference in 
Methodism, page 54). The action of the Bishops, in the par¬ 
ticular case now before us, may have been due to the fact that 
the case was regarded by them as not yet settled, owing to 
the litigation which had been pending throughout the quadren- 
nium and to their uncertainty as to its effect upon the order 
made by the General Conference. 

Trinity Church, not having complied with the order of the 
General Conference of 1908, is in contempt of the authority 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church of America, and is in open 
and determined insubordination thereto. Such disobedience, 
if permitted to continue, would be destructive of all order and 
discipline in the Church and would bring Methodism and the 
General Conference into disrepute. The time has come when 
this General Conference should, in defense of the Church and 
in justice to itself, exercise all its power and influence to compel 
Trinity Church to comply without further delay with the order 
made by the last General Conference. 

Your Committee on Judiciary therefore recommends: 


DECISIONS OF 1912 


159 


1. That the General Conference reaffirm the action taken in 
this matter by the last General Conference, and that it direct 
and order that Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church of Chicago, 
Illinois, and the Board of Trustees of said Church, do make, 
execute, and deliver, on or before September 1, 1912, a good and 
proper deed to the Marie Methodist Episcopal Church of the 
city and State aforesaid, or to its Board of Trustees, of the 
property on which the Marie Methodist Episcopal Church is 
erected, and deliver possession of the said property . 

2. That in case the said Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church, 
oy its Board of Trustees, fail or neglect to comply with this 
order, and do not make, execute, and deliver a good and suffi¬ 
cient deed conveying to the Marie Methodist Episcopal Church, 
or to its Board of Trustees, all right, title, and interest that 
the said Trinity Church or its Board of Trustees may have in 
the property on which the building occupied by Marie Church 
stands, then the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
are hereby directed that no one of their number shall appoint 
any preacher as pastor in charge of Trinity Church until the 
aforesaid order has been complied with, but shall allow it to 
remain unsupplied. 

And it is further ordered that no District Superintendent shall 
in such case and between the sessions of the Rock River Con¬ 
ference assign any preacher to take pastoral charge of said 
Trinity Church while the order aforesaid remains uncomplied 
with. 

3. That in case the Board of Trustees of Trinity Methodist 
Episcopal Church has not complied with the aforesaid order on 
or before August 1, 1912, and in case the laws of Illinois permit 
the election of Trustees under provisions of U 321 of the Disci¬ 
pline, then the pastor of Trinity Church is directed to call a 
meeting of all the members of Trinity Church above twenty-one 
years of age, giving notice at least two weeks in advance thereof; 
and the members shall proceed to elect by ballot not less than 
three nor more than nine persons having the qualifications pre¬ 
scribed in Tf 319; and the persons receiving a plurality of the 
votes cast shall constitute a Board of Trustees of Trinity Church 
until their successors are elected in accordance with the provi¬ 
sions of the Discipline; and the Board of Trustees so elected 
shall convey to Marie Church the property claimed by the latter, 
the conveyance to be made in the manner above directed. 

4. That Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church of Chicago, 
Illinois, be barred from all its former rights in the Rock River 
Conference so long as it remains disobedient to the orders made 
in this case by this General Conference. 

Presented, amended as shown in italicized words, and 
adopted, May 28. 16 

18 Journal , 1912, pp. 502, 547-556. 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 



160 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Report No. 14 

FLOWER DEACONESS HOME AND HOSPITAL; PROPERTY OF 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully considered the 
request of E. 0. Crist and others for an opinion whether the 
civil law and the law of the Church, under a proper construction 
of the will of the late Stevens W. Flower, permit the Trustees 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church to convey the title of the 
property now known as the Flower Deaconess Home and Hospi¬ 
tal, of Toledo, Ohio, to the Trustees thereof approved by the 
Central Ohio Conference; and having also the request of the 
Woman’s Home Missionary Society for an opinion defining, 
first, the ownership of said Deaconess Home and Hospital, and 
second, the duties, responsibilities, and privileges of the Woman’s 
Home Missionary Society in connection with this property, re¬ 
ports as follows: 

1. That, under the law of the Church and the terms of the 
will of the said Stevens W. Flower, the Trustees of the Meth¬ 
odist Episcopal Church may properly convey the title of said 
property to proper Trustees approved by the Central Ohio Con¬ 
ference, to hold the same for the execution of the trust; but 
that such transfer should be made only with the sanction of the 
courts of Ohio, and that this General Conference should be 
recorded as having no objection to making of the same, and 
should give its consent thereto. 

2. That the equitable interest in said property is wholly in the 
Central Ohio Conference Deaconess Home and Hospital by rea¬ 
son, among other things, of the provision of the will that the 
same should be “held in trust for the Central Ohio Conference 
Deaconess Home, under the auspices of the Woman’s Home 
Missionary Society of said Conference,” the legal title being 
in the Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

3. That the Woman’s Home Missionary Society of the Meth¬ 
odist Episcopal Church has no duty, responsibility, or privilege 
conferred upon it, under the terms of said will or by the law 
either of the Church or State, touching said property. In the 
opinion of this Committee, the Woman’s Home Missionary So¬ 
ciety has no beneficial interest whatever in the subject matter 
of the trust. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 17 

Report No. 15 

TRANSFER OF A DEACONESS 

Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred the 
resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of the Meth- 
odist De aconess Association at its meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio, 

17 Journal, 1912, pp. 502, 556, 557. 



DECISIONS OF 1912 


161 


April 8, 1912, asking that the General Conference, through its 
Judiciary Committee, “define the proper method for the transfer 
of a deaconess,” reports as follows: 

The question, in the opinion of the Committee on Judiciary, 
asks the Committee to assume functions which it does not 
possess. The Committee on Judiciary cannot legislate. That 
must be done by the General Conference itself, or through 
properly organized boards. 

The Committee on Judiciary may suggest, however, that 
under Paragraph 217, Section 4, of the Discipline of 1908, the 
General Deaconess Board has general supervision of all deaconess 
work throughout the Church, and may approve general rules for 
the government of all deaconesses however maintained or em¬ 
ployed. Under the broad authority there given, this Committee 
is of the opinion that it is within the province of said General 
Deaconess Board to approve the method for the transfer of a 
deaconess; and this, so far as this Committee is informed, has 
not been done. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 18 

Report No. 16 

judicial conference: no errors presented for review 

Your Committee on Judiciary, to which were referred the 
proceedings of the Judicial Conference held at Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania, on January 27, 1910, to consider the appeal of 
George W. Lott from the findings of the Ohio Annual Confer¬ 
ence at its session of 1910, having carefully considered the 
same, submits the following report: 

That the records of the proceedings of the Judicial Confer¬ 
ence in the case of said George W. Lott do not disclose any 
rulings by the presiding Bishop on questions of law, and no 
errors are presented therein for review. The finding of the 
Judicial Conference in the case of the said George W. Lott is 
therefore affirmed. 

Adopted, May 28. 19 

Report No. 17 

TRANSFER FROM SUPERANNUATED LIST TO SUPERNUMERARY 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully considered the 
appeal of Rev. Wilder Nutting, of the Montana Annual Con¬ 
ference, from the action of said Conference in changing his 
Conference relation as a member of said Conference from super¬ 
annuated to supernumerary, reports as follows: 

18 Journal, 1912, pp. 502, 557. 

18 Ibid., pp. 557, 558. 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 



162 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


The Minutes of the Montana Annual Conference, submitted 
for our consideration, disclose the following facts: 

1. That, upon motion of the Board of Conference Relations, 
the said Wilder Nutting was taken from the superannuated 
list and placed upon the supernumerary list. 

2. A motion was later made to reconsider the action in the 
case of said Wilder Nutting, and the motion prevailed. After 
discussion, the former action was sustained, and he was changed 
from the superannuated to the supernumerary list. 

So far as the Minutes disclose, no rulings were made by the 
Bishop presiding concerning the right of the Conference to 
change the relation of the said Wilder Nutting, nor does it ap¬ 
pear from the Minutes that the Bishop was asked to make any 
ruling in the matter. 

The said Wilder Nutting appealed from the action of the 
Montana Annual Conference to the General Conference, specify¬ 
ing the following grounds in his notice of appeal: 

1. That the Montana Annual Conference did not give him 
notice of its intention to change his Conference relation, and 
did it in his absence and without a hearing. 

2. That a two-thirds’ vote of the Conference was necessary, 
to disallow directly or indirectly any claim on Conference funds. 

3. That a permanently disabled preacher, who is already a 
superannuate, is not eligible for the supernumerary relation. 

The Minutes of the Annual Conference do not contain any 
reference to the alleged facts stated in said notice of appeal, 
nor does it appear in said Minutes that any exception was taken 
to the action of the Annual Conference on any of the grounds 
therein stated, or that any ruling was made by the presiding 
Bishop thereon. 

It is within the power of the Annual Conference to change 
the relation of a member thereof from superannuate to super¬ 
numerary, and in so doing pass upon the facts relating thereto. 

In the absence of any ruling by the presiding Bishop, and of 
any statement of facts except that contained in the notice of 
appeal, your Committee is of the opinion that the appeal of the 
said Wilder Nutting should not be sustained. 

Adopted, May 28. 20 


Report No. 18 

DEFINITION OF A DEACONESS INSTITUTION 

Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred a 
memorial subscribed by Edward C. Strout and others, dated 
May 13, 1912, calling for a definition by the General Confer¬ 
ence of a deaconess institution, reports as follows: 


30 Journal, 1912, pp. 558, 559. 



DECISIONS OF 1912 


163 


In the opinion of the Committee on Judiciary, it is not au¬ 
thorized to frame such a definition. The functions of the Com¬ 
mittee are judicial, not legislative. It would be proper for the 
General Conference, by suitable legislation, to define the mean¬ 
ing of the term “Deaconess Institution,” and then, when the 
question arises as to the character of the several institutions 
mentioned in the memorial, the Committee on Judiciary could 
determine their standing under such definition of law. 

From the memorial it would seem that the General Deaconess 
Board has already formulated a definition. The Committee 
assumes that this was done under the power granted to such 
board by Paragraph 217, Section 4, of the Discipline of 1908. 

Assuming such definition as controlling, the Committee be¬ 
lieves that sufficient facts are not stated with reference to the 
several institutions referred to in the memorial, concerning their 
organization, charter rights, etc., to enable it to form an opinion 
as to their true relation; and therefore it does not venture to 
express one in the premises. 

Adopted, May 28. 21 


Report No. 19 

BISHOPS AND CONSTITUTIONALITY OP RESOLUTION IN GENERAL 
CONFERENCE 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having been instructed by the 
General Conference to give an opinion on the following ques¬ 
tion, “What is the duty of a Bishop presiding in the General 
Conference when a report or resolution is presented which, in 
his judgment, involves a violation of the Constitution of the 
Church?” reports as follows: 

It is the opinion of the Committee on Judiciary that it is 
the duty of a Bishop presiding in a General Conference to 
state and put all questions brought before the body which do 
not violate the Rules of Order. If they violate the Rules of 
Order, he may on his own responsibility so state, and from that 
decision an appeal lies to the body itself. 

But a Bishop presiding in a General Conference cannot decide 
questions of law. The Discipline, Paragraph 42, Section 3, de¬ 
clares, “The presiding officer of the General Conference, shall 
decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the General 
Conference; but questions of law shall be decided by the Gen¬ 
eral Conference.” 

In deciding whether a question is in order, the Bishop must 
necessarily decide according to principles of parliamentary law, 
notwithstanding the statement that “questions of law shall be 
decided by the General Conference.” But, in view of the provi- 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


11 Journal, 1912, pp. 559. 



164 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


sion in the Discipline that a Bishop presiding in a General Con¬ 
ference cannot decide questions of law, he cannot pass upon 
questions of constitutional law, neither can he construe enact¬ 
ments made by the General Conference. 

The Committee is satisfied that such would be the rule even in 
the absence of the express provision contained in the Discipline. 
It has been decided on numerous occasions in the House of 
Representatives that a Speaker cannot rule a resolution or pro¬ 
posed legislation out of order on the ground that it is in viola¬ 
tion of the federal Constitution. From the days of John Quincy 
Adams to the present day, when a member of the House has 
made a point of order that a pending measure could not be 
considered on the ground that it was contrary to the Consti¬ 
tution, the Speaker has overruled the point on the theory that 
it was not the duty of the Chair to construe the Constitution 
as affecting any proposed legislation. An examination of Hind’s 
Precedents shows this to be the ruling in Congress. 

In reaching this conclusion the Committee is not unmindful 
of the opinion expressed by Bishop Merrill in his Digest of 
Methodist Law (edition 1904, page 79), who is of the opinion 
that a Bishop, while presiding in a General Conference, would 
have the right to make objection that a pending measure was 
in violation of the Constitution of the Church. He cites, how¬ 
ever, no authority and the Committee finds itself unable to 
concur in his opinion. 

A Bishop presiding in an Annual Conference or in a Judicial 
Conference is the law officer of the body, and as such decides all 
questions of law, subject to an appeal to the General Conference; 
but a Bishop presiding in the General Conference does not 
decide questions of law. 

The Committee therefore answers the question proposed to it 
by saying that it is the duty of a Bishop presiding in a General 
Conference to refrain from passing upon the constitutionality of 
a report or resolution presented to the General Conference, 
even though, in his opinion, it violates the Constitution of the 
Church. Whether such report or resolution is constitutional or 
unconstitutional is not for the Bishop to decide. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 22 

Report No. 20 

judicial conference: all questions to be presented 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully considered 
the appeal of Rev. Herbert W. Howard, a member of the Genesee 
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, respectfully 
reports as follows : 


22 Journal, 1912, pp. 502, 559, 560. 



DECISIONS OF 1912 


165 


1. In September, 1910, charges of immorality were brought 
against the said Herbert W. Howard, a member of the Genesee 
Annual Conference, upon which he was tried by a Select Num¬ 
ber, at the session of said Conference held in Rochester, New 
York, in October of that year, and said charges were sustained; 
and he was expelled from the ministry and membership of 
the Church. 

2. From that decision he appealed; and a Judicial Confer¬ 
ence held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in December, 1910, 
Bishop Neely presiding, remanded the case for a new trial by 
reason of certain manifest errors of law appearing of record. 

3. At the session of the Genesee Annual Conference, held in 
Le Roy, New York, in October, 1911, Bishop Berry presiding, 
he was again tried before a Select Number, with Bishop Bristol 
as Chairman, by appointment of the presiding Bishop Berry, 
when he was again deprived of his ministerial office and creden¬ 
tials, and found guilty and expelled from the ministry of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, but not from its membership. 

4. From that decision an appeal was taken to a Judicial Con¬ 
ference held in Albany, New York, in February, 1912, Bishop 
Hamilton presiding, which reversed the decision of the Genesee 
Annual Conference, thereby restoring the said Howard to mem¬ 
bership in the Genesee Conference. The appeal therefore is not 
from the action of the Judicial Conference held in Albany in 
February, 1912, but from an alleged error of law occurring at 
the retrial before the Select Number at Le Roy, New York, in 
October, 1911. 

5. At that trial counsel for the Church moved that, inasmuch 
as the presence of the principal witness in support of Specifica¬ 
tion III in the charges against Herbert W. Howard could not be 
had, said specification be withdrawn from the consideration of 
the Select Number. Counsel for the defendant objected to stat¬ 
ing in the motion the reason therein assigned for such with¬ 
drawal, and moved as an amendment that “Specification III is 
hereby withdrawn from the consideration of the Select Number,” 
which amendment was lost and the original motion prevailed. 
From this action of the Annual Conference the defendant ap¬ 
pealed, and bases his appeal on three grounds: 

(1) That the action of the Annual Conference was un¬ 
warranted. 

(2) Such action worked grievous injury to the defendant. 

(3) The main statement there contained was false. 

6. In the opinion of your Committee, when a defendant ap¬ 
peals from the decision of a Select Number to a Judicial Con¬ 
ference it is his duty to present thereto all questions of law, as 
well as all questions of fact, of which he complains, and failing 
so to do he may not thereafter appeal to the General Conference 
from any alleged errors occurring at the trial before the Select 


Finding of 
Committee 


166 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Number. It therefore follows that, having failed to observe this 
well-established rule of judicial procedure, the appellant cannot 
now be heard, and hence his appeal is denied. In order however 
to set at rest any similar questions that may hereafter arise, your 
Committee deems it proper to add that, inasmuch as the Annual 
Conference has the power to determine for itself the charges 
upon which a member shall be tried and the reasons therefor, 
there was no error of law in withdrawing from the consideration 
of the Select Number said Specification III and to assign the 
reason therefor as stated in the motion adopted. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 23 

Report No. 21 

CHINA CENTRAL MISSION CONFERENCE: INCLUSION IN 

Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred the 
following question presented by the Committee on Boundaries, 
to wit: “The Committee on Boundaries has before it requests 
to include in the China Central Mission Conference ( Discipline, 
Paragraph 89), the Malaysia and the Philippine Islands Con¬ 
ferences for Central Mission Conference purposes only. If this 
be admissible, these Conferences being within the jurisdiction 
of a Missionary Bishop, what relation will said Bishop have to 
the China Central Mission Conference which is within the 
jurisdiction of General Superintendents ?” submits the follow¬ 
ing report: 

1. There is no constitutional objection to including the 
Malaysia and Philippine Islands Conferences in the China Cen¬ 
tral Mission Conference for this purpose, though they are within 
the jurisdiction of General Superintendents. 

2. If such action is desired, the General Conference should 
determine by suitable action the authority of the Missionary 
Bishop in said China Central Mission Conference. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 24 

Report No. 22 

MAJORITY ELECTION OF GENERAL CONFERENCE DELEGATES 

The Committee on Judiciary, having been instructed by the 
General Conference to give an opinion on the question whether 
a majority vote of Annual and Lay Electoral Conferences is 
necessary to the election of reserve delegates to the General Con¬ 
ference, reports as follows: 

The provision governing the election of ministerial delegates, 
including reserve delegates, is contained in Paragraph 38 of the 


23 Journal, 1912, pp. 503, 561, 562. 

24 Ibid., pp. 506, 562. 



DECISIONS OF 1912 


167 


Discipline , and the provision governing the election of lay dele¬ 
gates, including reserve delegates, is found in Paragraph 39. 
It is expressly provided that the election shall be by ballot, but 
it is not provided in express terms that either the delegates or 
the reserve delegates must obtain a majority of the votes cast. 

The question propounded should therefore be answered ac¬ 
cording to the principles of the common law. There can be no 
doubt what the rule is in cases of this nature. In all elections 
the person who received the highest number of votes cast is 
elected, unless the law under which the election is held expressly 
requires that a majority of all votes cast must be obtained. 

The Committee therefore answers the question propounded in 
the negative, and declares that it is not necessary to the election 
either of delegates or reserve delegates that they should obtain a 
majority of all the votes cast. 

Presented and adopted. May 28. 25 

Report No. 23 

judicial conference; no questions presented 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully considered the 
petition of C. E. Millspaugh and E. G. Piper, counsel for the 
Genesee Annual Conference, in the case of said Conference 
against Herbert W. Howard, praying for such relief as lies 
within the power of the General Conference from the action of 
the Judicial Conference held in Albany, New York, in Febru¬ 
ary, 1912, whereby the decision of the Select Number of the 
Genesee Annual Conference, held in Le Roy, New York, in Oc¬ 
tober, 1911, was reversed and the said Howard was restored to 
membership in the said Conference, respectfully reports: 

That, as said petition presents no questions of law for review, 
the General Conference is without power to grant the relief 
prayed for. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 26 

Report No. 24 

judicial conference: erasure in record 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully considered 
the appeal of the Rev. Rufus T. Cooper, of the Erie Annual 
Conference, submits the following report: 

Rufus T. Cooper, of the Erie Annual Conference, was sus¬ 
pended from the ministry by a Committee of Investigation until 
the session of the next Annual Conference, on charges of grossly 
immoral conduct. On trial before a Select Number the charges 

25 Journal , 1912, pp. 506, 507, 562, 563. 

28 Ibid., pp. 507, 563. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 



1G8 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


were sustained, and a judgment was pronounced that he be 
expelled from the ministry and membership of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. 

He appealed to the Judicial Conference, and on that appeal 
the finding of the Select Number was affirmed. By this further 
appeal he comes to the General Conference. 

Though the case was ended in the Judicial Conference in 
March, 1909, at which time notice of appeal was given on the 
record, the Secretary of that tribunal did not, at the close of 
the trial, transmit the records made and the papers submitted 
in the case to the Secretary of the General Conference, as the 
Discipline directs. Indeed, the records and papers were not 
here when this General Conference convened. On the appear¬ 
ance of the appellant, it was necessary to send for these docu¬ 
ments, and they have only reached the Committee at the end 
of the session. Such delay in sending up records relating to an 
appeal cannot be justified and must be condemned. 

The appellant complains of an erasure in the record of the 
Judicial Conference. There is an annotation by the Secretary 
of the Judicial Conference that the matter erased was ordered 
stricken out. We must assume that this was done regularly in 
the Judicial Conference. The document is certified as the 
record of that tribunal, and has not been impeached as such. 
That record shows no exception by the appellant to the striking 
out of that which is erased. It must be assumed that he 
acquiesced therein. The fact does not appear that the striking 
out was done over his protest. In any event, the point relied on, 
in that which was stricken out, is not tenable. It would not avail 
the appellant, even if it could be considered. No prejudicial 
errors of law are disclosed by a careful examination and review 
of this delayed record. It is insisted that there was erroneous 
action by the Bishop presiding in the Judicial Conference. The 
Bishop was asked to rule on the propriety and admissibility of 
testimony considered before the Select Number. On an errone¬ 
ous theory, as expressed in the record, the Bishop ruled that 
he had no Disciplinary power to review and rule on decisions of 
the trial officers of the Select Number. While the record says 
that the Bishop declined to rule on the question raised, yet in 
effect he did rule thereon. The record shows that he admitted 
the testimony in question. Thus he held that it had been 
properly admitted at the trial before the Select Number. This 
action was, indeed, an overruling of the exception that had been 
taken to this testimony on the trial below. That the Bishop gave 
a wrong explanation of his action in this matter cannot avail the 
appellant. If the action of the Bishop in admitting the testi¬ 
mony was proper, the appellant is not judicially harmed. 

The testimony to which the exception pertained is competent 
and material in relation to the charges. That it is admissible 


DECISIONS OF 1912 


169 


testimony in the case is without doubt. So there is no pre¬ 
judicial error in the consideration of this point by the Bishop 
presiding at the Judicial Conference. 

No other questions of law are presented by the record. It is 
argued for the appellant that the evidence is not sufficient to 
sustain the charges. Two sets of triers of fact have held 
otherwise on competent and material testimony. The General 
Conference has no power, given by our Church law, to review 
a finding of fact resting on proper and weighty evidence. 

The judgment pronounced by the Judicial Conference must 
therefore be affirmed. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 27 

Report No. 25 

RULINGS OF BOARD OF BISHOPS 

Your Committee on Judiciary respectfully reports that the 
Rulings of the Bishops, as submitted to said Committee by the 
Secretary of the Board of Bishops, and referred to your Com¬ 
mittee by the General Conference, and hereto appended, are 
approved, with the exception of the Rulings hereinafter men¬ 
tioned. 

[Sixty-eight Rulings follow, which had been approved by the 
Committee on Judiciary. Three other Rulings are modified or 
not approved. 28 ] 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 29 

Report No. 26 

APPEAL FROM BISHOPS' RULINGS IN ANNUAL CONFERENCE 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully considered 
the records on appeal in the case of George H. Dryer, of the 
Genesee Annual Conference, respectfully reports: 

The said George H. Dryer, of the Genesee Annual Conference, 
appeared before said Committee, assuming to appeal in his case 
from the rulings of the Bishops presiding over the 1909 and 
1911 sessions of said Annual Conference. 

The appellant filed no notice stating the grounds upon which 
any ruling is objected to, and the Committee is asked to hear 
the case upon the reports of the several Conference sessions 
informally brought to our attention by the appellant, and upon 
a purely ex parte presentation by him, no representative of the 
Conference appearing, and with no record that the Conference 


27 Journal, 1912, pp. 507, 563-565. 

28 For these Rulings, see Part III, pp. 297-311. 

29 Journal, 1912, pp. 499, 565-578. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 



170 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


has had any notice of the presentation of any ruling for our 
consideration. 

The appellant expressly disclaims an intention to appeal from 
the decision of the Bishop presiding at the Judicial Conference 
which finally passed upon his case, and assumes the right to 
be heard because of the provisions of Paragraph 194, Section 10, 
and Paragraphs 276 and 284. The situation is illustrative of 
the mischievously loose character of our appellate procedure, for 
the practice allows the presentation of an appeal during the 
hurry of General Conference work, without notice to the pre¬ 
vailing side, upon ancient rulings which the prosecution might 
have deemed to be acquiesced in. 

Appellant was tried before a Select Number of his Annual 
Conference at its 1908 session, upon the charge of “unchristian 
and immoral conduct/’ the principal specification being that 
he had misappropriated a large sum of money belonging to the 
Western Methodist Book Concern, and that he had failed to keep 
repeated promises solemnly made to discharge the obligations 
growing out of such appropriation. 

The trial resulted in the acquittal of the charge of “unchris¬ 
tian and immoral conduct,” but in a conviction of business 
irregularity constituting high imprudence and unministerial 
conduct, according to Paragraph 243 of the Discipline, disquali¬ 
fying him for the office and work of a minister until this ir¬ 
regularity be rectified. 

Although many objections are urged in this appeal to features 
of the proceedings of this trial, they are not considered, for 
the reason that a Judicial Conference in 1909 remanded the 
case for a new trial. 

At the 1909 session of the Annual Conference, the decision 
of the Judicial Conference was presented, whereupon appellant 
interposed a demurrer in five counts, which was overruled by 
the Bishop. We will notice these counts and comment upon 
them categorically: 

1. The first was that the charge of unministerial conduct is 
an offense which the Discipline does not recognize. We think 
that this is not well taken; first, because Paragraph 243 provides 
in specific terms that punishment may be administered for 
“high imprudence and unministerial conduct”; and, second, 
because it seems clearly improvident, considering the somewhat 
incoherent way in which the judicial provisions of the Discipline 
are drafted, to insist upon technical terms and their narrow 
application, especially as we shall see further in this report 
that the Discipline (Paragraphs 252-268) provides for punish¬ 
ment for conduct of which the defendant was charged, without 
attempting to give to such conduct a specific designation. 

2. The second count is that there could be no trial on a 
charge of “unchristian conduct” until after the offender had 


DECISIONS OF 1912 


171 


been labored with. Reference here is had to Paragraph 260, 
which plainly does not apply to circumstances charged against 
appellant. 

3. The third is that the complainants were not legally com¬ 
petent to bring and prosecute charges, because they are not the 
persons with whom the accused had the business transaction out 
of which the alleged offense grew, and because they were not 
members of the Genesee Conference. These grounds cease to 
be of consequence, in view of the fact that the charges pre¬ 
ferred by the Agents of the Western Methodist Book Concern 
were afterward considered as but accusations preliminary to 
formal charges, which were drafted for the second trial. 

4. The fourth count raised the question that the persons bring¬ 
ing the charges should not be heard, because they had rejected 
an offer to arbitrate. This is not well taken; first, because the 
gist of the offense is one against the Western Methodist Book 
Concern and not against the individuals who happened to be 
Publishing Agents thereof, and, consequently, is not such a dis¬ 
agreement between persons in business, within the province of 
If 263, as to be the subject of arbitration; second, 263 to 
266 deal exclusively with business transactions in which moral 
turpitude is not involved. The specification being the “mis¬ 
appropriation of the funds of the Western Methodist Book Con¬ 
cern,” under the circumstances there alleged a situation is pre¬ 
sented not susceptible to arbitration; although, of course, the 
amount to be paid might be so determined had not appellant 
settled that question by giving notes; third, the demurrer pre¬ 
sents no record of an offer to arbitrate. 

5. The fifth count is that the specifications related to financial 
transactions in which no fraud or dishonesty is alleged, where¬ 
fore under If 235 there can be no actionable case. Comment 
already made suggests that this ground is not tenable. 

The last count raises the question of res adjudicata, on the 
theory that, having been acquitted on the charge of “unchristian 
and unministerial conduct” under practically the same specifica¬ 
tions, the accused could not be tried again. We must consider 
that the action of the Judicial Conference, at the insistence of 
the appellant himself, in the fact that it awarded him a new 
trial, had opened the case anew and left the charges as if they 
had never been tried. Following the practice of civil law under 
similar circumstances, we are clear that the case was before the 
Conference of 1909, as at the beginning. 

The demurrer was overruled, and the only objection noted is 
that the Bishop’s reasons were general and evasive. We are 
not concerned with the reasons given by the Bishop, but only 
with the effect of his ruling, and in our opinion the decision 
was right. 

The case then took this course: A special Committee of nine 


Finding of 
Committee 


172 REPOETS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


members of the Annual Conference was appointed to consider 
whether or not the charges should be entertained. No objections 
seem to have been made by the defendant to this disposition of 
the accusations of Jennings and Graham. 

Subsequently the Special Committee reported that the charges 
should be considered, and recommended their redrafting, and 
it was ordered that this Committee perform that office. Then, 
again, the counsel for the accused raised the question whether 
a member, having been tried on a charge which was not sus¬ 
tained, could again be brought to trial on substantially the 
same charge and specification. This question the Bishop de¬ 
clined to answer, and his refusal is now urged as a prejudicial 
error, although no appeal was noted at the time. In our judg¬ 
ment the matter has been disposed of in considering the 
demurrer, and the silence of the Bishop could not have been 
prejudicial, for his answer, if given, should have been in the 
affirmative, considering that the issue was remanded for new 
trial. 

A Select Number of fifteen was then chosen, and the defendant 
brought to trial on the reformulated charges, which were signed 
by two members of the Annual Conference. The specific charge 
was “persistent unchristian and unministerial conduct,” and 
was supported by four specifications. 

The judgment was “That George H. Dryer be suspended 
from his ministerial office until he has adjusted his business 
matters satisfactorily to the creditors concerned in the case, 
and given evidence of amendment sufficient to warrant his 
restoration by the Conference.” 

Appeal was taken to a Judicial Conference held at Harris¬ 
burg in 1910, where the findings and judgment of the Select 
Number were sustained. No appeal is presented therefrom. 

It is urged that the proceeding was an attempt to start a 
criminal action for the purpose of enforcing the collection of 
debt where there is not alleged purpose to defraud, and that 
such an action is contrary to the first principles of American 
jurisprudence. But If 352 of the Discipline provides that when 
any minister indebted to The Book Concern neglects to make 
payment, or to come to a just settlement, he shall be dealt witli 
in the same manner as in other cases of debt or disputed ac¬ 
counts; and If 268 provides that any minister contracting debts 
which he is not able to pay, or who has behaved dishonestly, 
or has borrowed money without the probability of paying, may 
be brought to trial, and, if found guilty, expelled. 

The office of minister in the Methodist Church is not a prop¬ 
erty right, but a high privilege, continuance in the enjoyment of 
which depends upon the maintenance of the character which 
the recipient was presumed to have when he was clothed with the 
office; and a charge which affects only his continuance in office, 


DECISIONS OF 1912 


173 


and which is based upon conduct incompatible with his exercise 
of ministerial functions, is not made in order to effect a punish¬ 
ment as the result of a criminal proceeding, but is an attempt 
to protect the office from the ministrations of an unworthy 
person. 

It seems very clear, assuming the facts as they appear to 
be in the specifications, that the Publishing Agents of the 
Western Methodist Book Concern performed but a plain duty 
when they presented the matter to the defendant's Annual Con¬ 
ference, and, while the sentence may savor of an attempt to 
collect a debt, that feature of it as a condition for restoration 
to the office is clearly a favor to the defendant. 

We can notice but few of the large number of questions put 
to the Committee on Judiciary by the brief of appellant, because 
a great many of them represent questions not raised by him on 
the record, and others of them refer, as we stated above, to 
matters which happened on the first trial, which were clearly 
avoided in the second trial as prejudicial errors. 

On the second trial a majority of the Select Number were of 
the Special Committee appointed to consider the charges and to 
draft them in proper form, and the question is now raised 
whether they were legally appointed to the court. The ques¬ 
tion does not affect this case, because no objection was offered 
by the defendant to those eight men serving as part of the 
Select Number; but we notice it to express our disapproval of 
the practice. 

Some objection is raised in the briefs to the short notice of 
the amended charges given to the defendant, with the complaint 
that due notice thereof was not given him. We do not consider 
this question, for the reason that the record does not show 
that the defendant objected to the insufficiency of the notice 
when placed on trial. 

It is objected to for the first time in the brief that the Select 
Number was presided over by Bishop Walden, through the ap¬ 
pointment of the Bishop presiding at the Annual Conference. 
No objection was made to this at the time, nor do we think 
that, reading Paragraph 201 and Paragraph 243, Section 3, of 
the Discipline together, this action of the presiding Bishop was 
erroneous. It does not appear that Bishop Walden took any 
part in the proceedings further than to act as presiding 
officer. 

It is now first objected that the Secretary of the Select Num¬ 
ber was excluded from the room during the consideration of the 
verdict. This was proper, the Secretary not being one of the 
Select Number. 

It is urged that the verdict in the second trial did not declare 
the charges sustained. The record shows that the Select Num¬ 
ber voted in the affirmative on the question, “Do the specifica- 


Finding of 
Committee 


174 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


tions as sustained sustain the charge ?”; wherefore we pass this 
complaint. 

It is vehemently urged that the Bishop presiding at the 
1909 Conference erred in ruling that the coming in from the 
Judicial Conference of a demand for new trial left the Annual 
Conference no option but to enter into a new trial. The record 
is silent as to any issue to which such a ruling was addressed, 
and no appeal from or objection to it was noted. Before the 
question arose a Committee had been raised in the Annual Con¬ 
ference to consider whether the charges should be entertained, 
and there is no appearance on the record that appellant’s case 
was prejudiced by this dictum at such a time. 

This case has been considered only in the light of the specifica¬ 
tions. We have nothing to do with the facts which were finally 
passed upon by the General Conference. The rulings challenged 
are therefore necessarily interpreted by the character of the 
accusations. On the record made and saved we are unable to 
find any prejudicially erroneous rulings. 

Only because of the uncertainty of our practice have the 
grounds of appeal urged in this case been considered at all. 
None of the questions appear on the record to have been pre¬ 
sented to the Judicial Conference. It is the judgment of this 
Committee on Judiciary, for which we ask the approval of the 
General Conference, that a member of the Annual Conference 
when convicted after trial, and appealing to a Judicial Con¬ 
ference, should present to the latter all the objections, whether 
to the rulings of the President of the Annual Conference pre¬ 
liminary to the trial, or to features of the trial; and that his 
right to review in the General Conference, when appeal to a 
Judicial Conference is presented, is limited to such legal ques¬ 
tions as may have been there raised for decision by the Bishop 
presiding and preserved in the record thereof. It is the opinion 
of this Committee that only opinions of law on administrative 
matters, or decisions not available for appeal to a Judicial Con¬ 
ference, or those arising in cases not so appealed, may be re¬ 
viewed on appeal directly to the General Conference under 
the provisions of If 194, § 10. 

Such a decision is that of the Bishop presiding at the 1911 
session of the Genesee Annual Conference, which meets the chal¬ 
lenge of its subject, Dr. Dryer, before the Committee on Judi¬ 
ciary. This decision was twofold, the first proposition being 
that an Annual Conference, under any circumstances, may not 
set aside or modify the findings of a Select Number. This is 
undoubtedly the law of the Church, and upon adherence to it 
depends the stability of all our legal procedure. The verdict 
of a Select Number and its judgment are findings of the An¬ 
nual Conference itself on its judicial side, and when they have 
been presented the Annual Conference ceases for all time to have 


DECISIONS OF 1912 


175 


judicial functions with reference to that particular case, and 
it may not, on its administrative side, vacate or modify such 
conclusions. It may, however, consider, in the course of ad¬ 
ministration, the effect of such judgment upon the status in the 
Annual Conference of the member affected; since the relation 
of a member is subject at all times to the control of his Con¬ 
ference. 

The second proposition of the controverted ruling was to the 
effect that an action of the Annual Conference of 1910, which 
assumed to terminate the appellants suspension, was illegal and 
void, because the terms of the sentence had not been attempted 
to be met; wherefore the effect of such action was to vacate the 
judgment. We must consider this decision with reference to the 
only record properly before us, that is, the Genesee Annual Con¬ 
ference Minutes of 1911. The ruling was an administrative 
one, coming to us only under the provision of Paragraph 194, 
Section 10. No memorial, notice of appeal, or resolution sent 
to us by action of the General Conference bring any additional 
fact. We have had offered to us from both sides many matters 
seeming to bear more or less relation to the question, which 
we do not consider because so to do would require this Com¬ 
mittee on Judiciary to resolve itself into a court of first instance, 
a function which the Committee does not possess. For us to go 
outside the record would be to add a dangerous precedent to a 
procedure already vague and without system. We feel bound 
therefore to indulge the presumption which attaches to a judi¬ 
cial determination, and to uphold this branch of the ruling 
for want of a record which we may properly consider to move 
us to do otherwise. 

The question whether there may be rendered a judgment of 
suspension for more than a year, argued before the Committee, 
does not arise in this case. Nowhere do we find that appellant 
has raised it; at least he offers no record to that effect, and it is 
open to query if this judgment, the operation of which, whether 
or not it shall extend over a year, is left to him, is obnoxious to 
this criticism; but we feel called to say that the sentence is of 
such a character as to clothe the Annual Conference with the 
power, in the way of administration, to determine when its 
terms have been met. Although one condition of the sentence is 
that appellant shall adjust “his business matters satisfactorily 
to the creditors concerned,” we cannot hold that exactions of 
creditors which the debtor is unable fairly and reasonably to meet 
avail to continue the suspension. 

The Annual Conference, as the judge of the status of its 
members, with power to determine the relation of everyone, 
rather than the creditors interested, is the tribunal to decide 
under the terms of the sentence whether the suspension should 
terminate; which it may decide without vacating or modifying 


Finding of 
Committee 


176 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Questions 

referred 


thereby the judgment. The terms call upon the defendant for 
the best performance reasonably possible under the circum¬ 
stances, and when his Annual Conference decides that such a 
condition has been fairly met its decision to reinstate there¬ 
fore is not a vacation or a modification of the judgment, but a 
fulfillment thereof. 

We recommend that the appeals of George H. Dryer be over¬ 
ruled. 

Presented and adopted, May 29. 30 

Report No. 27 

OUR MISSIONARIES IN THE JAPANESE WORK 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully considered 
the memorial of the missionaries of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in Japan connected with the East Japan Mission Coun¬ 
cil, asking permission to accept certain courtesies in the autono¬ 
mous Japanese Methodist Church, respectfully reports: 

The Committee has carefully considered the legal questions 
involved, and, while we cannot concur in the request for the 
reasons stated in the action of the General Conference of 1908 
(Journal, 1908, pages 731-733), it is of the opinion that this 
General Conference can grant the substance of the request by 
removing the footnote at the end of the third Paragraph on 
page 733 concerning reciprocal transfers, as follows: “This pro¬ 
vision for transfers does not apply to missionaries engaged in 
educational work”; thus making it possible for our missionaries, 
while engaged in other than direct evangelistic work, to accept, 
for special service only, appointments as pastors, assistant pas¬ 
tors, or members of certain Benevolent Boards in the Japanese 
Methodist Church, provided that upon request they are duly 
transferred to said Japanese Methodist Church under the provi¬ 
sion for reciprocal transfers. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 31 

Report No. 28 

TENURE OF OFFICE OF MEMBERS OF THE BOOK COMMITTEE 

Your Committee on Judiciary, to which were referred two 
questions as to the tenure of office of certain members of the 
Book Committee, reports as follows: 

First Case 

Durand W. Springer, a layman of the Detroit Conference, 
was elected by the General Conference of 1908 for the period 
of eight years as a member of the Book Committee, to repre- 

80 Journal , 1912, pp. 509, 578-584. 

"/tad., pp. 506, 585. 



DECISIONS OF 1912 


177 


sent the twelfth General Conference District. At the Gen¬ 
eral Conference of 1912 the Detroit Annual Conference was 
transferred from the twelfth General Conference District, to 
which it formerly belonged, to the eleventh General Conference 
District, which last mentioned District, the eleventh, was then 
represented in the Book Committee by Charles E. Bacon. The 
question is asked as to the tenure of office of said Durand W. 
Springer. 

It is the opinion of your Committee that by reason of the 
transfer of the Detroit Annual Conference, within the bounds 
of which Durand W. Springer resided, from the twelfth Gen¬ 
eral Conference District to the eleventh General Conference Dis¬ 
trict, the said Durand W. Springer lost his right to represent 
the twelfth General Conference District on the Book Com¬ 
mittee. 

Second Case 

Oscar P. Miller, a layman of the Northwest Iowa Conference, 
was elected a member of the Book Committee from the eighth 
General Conference District in 1900, to serve for the period of 
four years. At the General Conference of 1904, under the re¬ 
grouping and renumbering of the General Conference Districts, 
the eighth General Conference District was changed from the 
eighth General Conference District to the ninth General Con¬ 
ference District; and the said 0. P. Miller was there and then 
elected a member of the Book Committee for a term of eight 
years, which term would expire at the General Conference of 
1912. 

On page 436 of the General Conference Journal of 1904 is 
a resolution which reads as follows: 

“Resolved, 1. That this regrouping of the Annual Conferences 
within General Conference Districts shall not disturb the tenure 
of office of any member of the Book Committee. 

" Resolved, 2. That the members of the Book Committee to be 
elected by the General Conference, to fill vacancies caused by 
expiration of their term of four years, shall be chosen one each 
from the General Conference Districts numbered in the present 
schedule as follows, namely: Nos. two, four, six, seven, nine, ten, 
and fourteen.” 

On page 431 of the Discipline of 1908 the name of O. P. 
Miller, Northwest Iowa Conference, appears as a member of the 
Book Committee for the ninth General Conference District, his 
term expiring in 1912. In the General Conference Journal of 
1908, on page 115, it appears that the term of O. P. Miller, of 
the Northwest Iowa Conference, representing the ninth Gen¬ 
eral Conference District on the Book Committee, expires in 
1912. The General Conference of 1912 elected a layman, H. M. 
Havner, of the Iowa Conference, as a member of the Book 


Finding of 
Committee 


Finding of 
Committee 


178 BEPOBTS OP THE JUDICIABY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


Committee from the ninth General Conference District for the 
period of eight years, and in the opinion of your Committee 
0. P. Miller ceases to be a member of said Book Committee from 
the ninth General Conference District as the result of said 
election. 

Presented and adopted, May 28. 32 

Repoet No. 29 

BOUNDARIES OF MISSIONS 

The Committee on Judiciary was requested to render an 
opinion upon the legality of submitting the question of bound¬ 
aries to a Mission for ratification or rejection, and further as to 
whether the Committee on Boundaries, acting for the General 
Conference, does not possess power to determine the boundaries 
of a Mission without the consent of such Mission. 

Under If 452, Discipline of 1908, a Mission Superintendent 
may give notice of the desire of the Mission concerning a change 
in the boundaries of said Mission; but the Committee on Bound¬ 
aries may adjust the matters involved in said petition, subject 
to the approval of all the Annual and Mission Conferences con¬ 
cerned. As a Mission is neither a Mission Conference nor an 
Annual Conference, it is not legal for the Committee on Bound¬ 
aries to submit the question of boundaries to a Mission for its 
ratification or rejection, and the Committee on Boundaries 
acting for the General Conference has power to determine the 
boundaries of a Mission without the consent of such Mission. 

Presented and adopted, May 29. 33 

Report No. 30 

ANNUAL CONFERENCE MEMBERSHIP OF BISHOP 

The Committee on Judiciary was instructed by the General 
Conference to answer the following questions: 

“Is Missionary Bishop Oldham a member of any Conference ? 
if so, what Conference ?” 

We answer that Bishop Oldham never absolutely lost his 
Annual Conference relationship, and is now a member of the 
Annual Conference to which he belonged when he was elected 
to the office of Missionary Bishop, and will continue in such 
membership unless he select, with the approbation of the Bishops, 
membership in some other Annual Conference. 

Our reasons are the following: 

1. Membership in an Annual Conference can be terminated 
only in four ways: (1) By location, (2) by surrender of min- 

” Journal , 1912, pp. 506, 585, 586. 

M Ibid., pp. 509, 586, 587. 



DECISIONS OF 1912 


179 


isterial office, (3) by withdrawal, and (4) by refusal to do 
the work assigned. (Discipline, Paragraphs 160-164.) As an 
election to the office of Bishop does not come within the provi¬ 
sions of any of these four ways, an election to such office does not 
terminate membership in an Annual Conference. 

2. Having accepted an office incompatible with the office of 
Bishop, which acceptance ipso facto was a relinquishment of the 
office of Bishop, Bishop Oldham came under the purview of 
If 159, which gives him the privilege of selecting membership in 
any Annual Conference, such selection to be approved by the 
Bishops. 

3. While the election to the office of Bishop does not terminate 
membership in an Annual Conference, a Bishop, so long as he 
continue in office, is amenable to the General Conference, which 
amenability supersedes for the time being that of his amenability 
to the Annual Conference in which his membership resides. 

During his incumbency of his office of Bishop he can exercise 
only such rights as are compatible with said office, and may not 
engage the rights of a member of an Annual Conference which 
are incompatible therewith. As to such matters his connection 
with his Annual Conference is in suspension while occupying 
the episcopal office. 

If Bishop Oldham ceased to be a member of an Annual Con¬ 
ference when he was elected to the episcopacy, then he ceased 
also to be a traveling preacher; for under the rule of the Gen¬ 
eral Conference made in 1872 (Journal, page 442) all members 
of the Church who are not members of the Annual Conferences 
are laymen. 

(Minority Report) 

Upon the election of a traveling Elder to the office of Bishop 
he loses his membership in the Annual Conference to which he 
formerly belonged. 

This doctrine is supported by the precedent of Bishop L. L. 
Hamline, who at the General Conference of 1852 resigned his 
office of General Superintendent. It was his own opinion, sup¬ 
ported by the conclusion of that General Conference, that upon 
his resignation from the episcopacy he became an Elder with¬ 
out Annual Conference relations, or that he was simply a local 
preacher. (See Dr. Buckley, Constitutional History, page 216.) 

As a further proof of his own sincerity in holding this doc¬ 
trine, and also as evincing the prevailing opinion of the Church 
at that time, “at his own request, and without formality, he was 
readmitted in 1852 to the Ohio Conference, and his name was 
placed in answer to the question, ‘Who are the Superannuated 
or Worn-out Preachers V ” (Dr. Buckley, Constitutional His¬ 
tory, page 216.) 

Bishop Soule, in his historical communication to the first 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 


Minority 

Report 


180 EEPOETS OF THE JUDICIAEY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


in 1858, also expresses the opinion that, since his election to the 
office of Bishop, he sustained no relation to any particular Con¬ 
ference that he did not sustain to every other Conference. 

Thus the opinions of these great legal lights agree that, so 
long as an Elder occupies the office of a Bishop, he is not a mem¬ 
ber of any Annual Conference. 

There is not now, and never has been, in the Discipline any 
law providing for such a situation as that involved. 

But we are of the opinion that this General Conference has 
authority to enact such legislation as will define the status of 
any General Superintendent or Missionary Bishop in case of 
resignation of the office. 34 

Presented; minority report laid on table; adopted, May 29. 35 

Report No. 31 

"in the absence of a bishop" 

The Committee on Judiciary has been requested to interpret 
the phrase, “In the absence of a Bishop,” as found in Para¬ 
graph 179, Sections 2, 3, and 4. This Paragraph defines the 
duties of a District Superintendent, and Sections 3 and 4 refer 
to duties which devolve upon him in the absence of a Bishop. 
Section 4 reads, “To preside in the District Conference in the 
absence of a Bishop.” It is our opinion that in this connection 
a Bishop is absent when he is not present at the session of the 
District Conference. 

Sections 2 and 3 read as follows: 

“§ 2. In the absence of a Bishop, to take charge of all the 
traveling ministers, local preachers, and exhorters in his District, 
as the Discipline directs.” 

“§ 3. To change the appointments of preachers in his District, 
if necessary, during the interval between the sessions of the 
Conference, in the absence of a Bishop.” 

In these Sections the meaning of the language evidently is not 
as restricted as in Section 4. By the literal meaning of the 
language used and by the analogy in civil matters the mean¬ 
ing seems to be clear. It is our opinion that the phrase, “In the 
absence of a Bishop,” in Sections 2 and 3, means, “In case a 
Bishop is not personally present within the bounds of the Annual 
Conference.” As the duties of a governor devolve upon the 
lieutenant-governor, when the former is beyond the bounds of a 
State, so, according to these Sections, certain duties of the Gen¬ 
eral Superintendent devolve upon the District Superintendent 
when the former is beyond the bounds of the Annual Conference. 

Presen ted and adopted, May 29. 36 

34 Journal, 1912, p. 509; Daily Christian Advocate , May 30, 1912, p. 782. 

* Ibid., pp. 509, 587, 588. 

16 Ibid., pp. 509, 588. 



DECISIONS OF 1912 


181 


Report No. 32 

COMPLAINT; NO QUESTION OF LAW PRESENTED 

The complaint alleges that the following decision was rendered 
against him in the South America Annual Conference, to wit: 

“We declare that A. D. Penninetti is guilty of insubordina¬ 
tion and disobedience, also of an unworthy conduct for a minister 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church; and, of course, he deserves 
the penalty of expulsion from the ministry and from the com¬ 
munion of the Methodist Episcopal Church.” 

Your Committee on Judiciary respectfully reports: 

1. That said complaint apparently is intended as an appeal, 
but is subscribed only by the complainant and is not supported 
by other documentary evidence. Clearly, it is only the argu¬ 
ment or brief of the complainant, and is in no sense a transcript 
of a record of any proceeding had before said Conference. 

2. It is the opinion of the Committee that no question of law 
is presented for review and determination by said complaint, 
and that your Committee is without jurisdiction to act in the 
matter, and therefore returns the memorial containing said 
complaint with this report to the General Conference. 

Presented and adopted, May 29. 37 

Report No. 33 

CAN A MISSIONARY BISHOP HOLD THE OFFICE OF COR¬ 
RESPONDING SECRETARY? 

The Committee on Judiciary, having been requested by the 
General Conference to give an opinion on the questions stated 
below, reports as follows: 

To the question, “Can a person hold the offices of Missionary 
Bishop and of Corresponding Secretary of the Board of Foreign 
Missions at the same time?” we answer that he cannot. 

To the question, “If he elects to fill the office of Secretary of 
the Board of Foreign Missions, can he vacate the office of Mis¬ 
sionary Bishop?” we answer that an acceptance of the office of 
Secretary of the Board of Foreign Missions would operate to 
vacate the office of Missionary Bishop. 

To the question, “If he declines to vacate the office of Mis¬ 
sionary Bishop, and elects to fill the office of Secretary of the 
Board of Foreign Missions, what action, if any, should be taken 
by the General Conference to vacate either office?” we answer 
that no action is necessary, as the acceptance of the one office 
at once vacates the other. 

The principle of the common law is that the same person can¬ 
not at the same time hold two offices which are incompatible. 
The office of Secretary of the Board of Foreign Missions in the 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


17 Journal, 1912, pp. 512, 588, 589. 



182 REPORTS OF THE' JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Methodist Episcopal Church is incompatible with that of a 
Missionary Bishop. 

Adopted, May 27. 38 

In the study of the preceding thirty-three reports it is 
observable that the large proportion of nine are appeals re¬ 
lating to personal character or reinstatement. The analysis 
further shows that two reports have reference to the bishopric. 
The powers of the General Conference over the field of the 
Missionary Bishop are defined in Report No. 9, and are 
declared as not limited by the Restrictive Rules. In Report 
No. 30 the membership of the Bishop in the Annual Con¬ 
ference is affirmed; and this decision, it may be noticed, 
formed the basis for a subsequent report at the General 
Conference of 1920 concerning the relation of a Bishop to 
his Annual Conference. Altogether, the number of reports 
in 1912 was the largest in the history of the Judiciary Com¬ 
mittee following its formation in 1876. 

38 Journal , 1912, pp. 481, 589. 



XV 


DECISIONS OF 1916 

I N the choice of the Committee on Judiciary by the Gen¬ 
eral Conference at Saratoga Springs, N. Y., the direc¬ 
tion of Rule 36 of the Rules of Order was observed. 
This provision was: 

The delegates of each General Conference District shall 
nominate from their number one member, and the Bishops shall 
nominate four, making the total number nineteen. 1 

Members of the Committee. —As later confirmed, the fol¬ 
lowing constituted the Committee on Judiciary for 1916 : 

I. Lee C. Abbott, New Hampshire. 

II. Henry Wade Rogers, New York East. 

III. William Nottingham, Central New York. 

IV. Alexander Simpson, Jr., Philadelphia. 

V. John M. Killits, West Ohio. 

VI. Charles P. Ford, Washington. 

VII. J. P. Wragg, Atlanta. 

VIII. John Marshall, Kansas. 

IX. John N. Dryden, Nebraska. 

X. Walter C. Frank, Central Illinois. 

XI. George Elliott, Detroit, 

XII. Charles A. Pollock, North Dakota. 

XIII. Oscar A. Knehans, St. Louis German. 

XIV. W. S. Allen, Southern California. 

XV. Hiram Gould, Oregon. 

At Large 

H. B. Johnson, California. 

C. L. Smith, North-East Ohio. 

J. W. Van Cleve, Illinois. 

G. H. Bickley, Philadelphia. 2 

The Committee organized by the election of Henry Wade 
Rogers as Chairman; Alexander Simpson, Jr., as Vice-Chair¬ 
man ; and 0. A. Knehans as Secretary. 

Reports of the Committee. —The following thirty-one re¬ 
ports were presented by the Committee during the session, 

1 Journal , 1916, p. 144. 

'Ibid., pp. 92, 315. 

183 



184 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


and such disposition was made of them as is recorded in the 
successive pages of this chapter: 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


Report No. 1 

DIVORCED WIFE NOT CONFERENCE CLAIMANT 

Your Committee on Judiciary recommends for your adoption 
the following: 

Your Committee on Judiciary have carefully considered the 
memorial of E. M. Holmes and others of the Des Moines Con¬ 
ference asking for the judgment of this Conference on the rights 
of Mary Everly as a Conference Claimant. 

At the Des Moines Annual Conference session of 1897 H. J. 
Everly was accused, tried and convicted of offenses involving his 
moral character. He was expelled from the ministry and 
from the Church. He afterward obtained a divorce from his 
wife, Mary Everly, and married again. The decision asked is 
whether or not Mary Everly, the divorced wife, is legally a 
Conference Claimant, she having served with her husband for 
twenty-two years in the regular itinerancy of the Church, main¬ 
taining a personal Christian character that has never been 
questioned. 

Under Paragraph 323 of the Discipline of 1912, a Methodist 
Episcopal preacher has a right to comfortable support, and on 
his death that right passes to the dependent members of his 
family. By the next paragraph of the Discipline retired min¬ 
isters and the widows of deceased ministers are made Confer¬ 
ence Claimants. Mary Everly is not the widow of a deceased 
minister. After H. J. Everly was expelled from the ministry 
and from the Church he could not become a legal Conference 
Claimant, and for the same reason his widow on his decease 
cannot become one. At the time the divorce was granted H. J. 
Everly was not a Methodist Episcopal minister or a member of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. For these reasons your Com¬ 
mittee is of the opinion that Mary Everly is not a legal Con¬ 
ference Claimant. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 3 

Report No. 2 

COMPLAINT AGAINST ADMINISTRATION OF BISHOP HAMILTON 

Your Committee on Judiciary recommends for your adoption 
the following: 

The complaint of George A. Crawford against the administra¬ 
tion of Bishop Hamilton expressly admits that the complainant 
had allowed the time to expire within which he was permitted 


• Journal , 1916, pp. 423, 484, 485. 



DECISIONS OF 1916 


185 


to appeal from the decisions of Bishop Hamilton of which he 
complains, and for that reason he puts his petition in the 
form of a complaint against the Bishop’s administration of his 
office. 

Rule 41 of Rules of Order, General Conference, 1916, expressly 
provides that the Judiciary Committee can only consider appeals 
and such “other questions which may be referred to it by the 
General Conference.” As this matter is not an appeal and has 
not been referred by the General Conference to the Judiciary 
Committee it cannot be considered. 

It also appears from the petition that the matters complained 
of are now being considered by the Courts of Massachusetts, on 
a proceeding initiated by the petitioner himself. 

The complaint of George A. Crawford against the administra¬ 
tion of Bishop Hamilton should be dismissed. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 4 

Report No. 3 

RIGHT OF ABSENTEE TO VOTE AT ANNUAL CONFERENCE 

Your Committee on Judiciary recommends for your adoption 
the following: 

The Committee having been requested by the General Con¬ 
ference to give an opinion whether the phrase “absentees from 
the session of an Annual Conference” means an absentee at the 
time the vote for delegate is taken as set forth in the Journal, 
1896, page 274 and published in the appendix to the Discipline , 
1912, page 502, as follows: “Absentees from the session of an 
Annual Conference may not vote in the election of delegates to 
the General Conference, nor upon proposed amendments to the 
Constitution,” reports as follows: “No member of an Annual 
Conference may vote in the election of delegates to the General 
Conference, nor upon proposed amendments to the Constitution, 
who is not present at the time and place the vote is taken.” 

The Committee recommends that this decision be printed in 
the Discipline. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 5 

Report No. 4 

APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BISHOP COOKE 

Your Committee on Judiciary recommends for your adoption 
the following: 

The appeal of L. N. B. Anderson from the decision of Bishop 
Cooke at the fortieth annual session of the Columbia River An- 


4 Journal , 1916, pp. 423, 485. 
6 Ibid., pp. 423, 485, 486. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 



186 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


nual Conference, held September 2-8, 1913, raises questions rela¬ 
tive to the status of local preachers with regard to course of 
study, etc. The following taken from the Minutes of the Con¬ 
ference shows the proceedings had: 

Questions: “What is the status of local preachers with regard 
to course of study, when such local preachers have for years 
had their license renewed and who do not intend to enter the 
regular ministry as members of an Annual Conference? 

“1. May their license be renewed without an examination in 
the course of study without exception? 

“2. Is it mandatory upon all without exception that they pass 
in the required course of study ? 

“3. Is it necessary, having passed the four years 5 course, to be 
called upon later to pass examinations ? 

“4. A local preacher having had his character passed and 
license renewed for four consecutive years without the Quarterly 
Conference examining him in the required course, does not the 
fact of renewing his license amount to an examination as pre¬ 
scribed by the Discipline ? 

“5. Is any General Conference legislation retroactive unless 
distinctly specified ? 

“6. Is a District Superintendent justified in refusing to re¬ 
ceive the recommendation of pastor for renewal of license of a 
local preacher, no charges being filed against him ?” 

Answer: The Chair declines to decide on the points presented 
without excluding the words, “without exception.” 

The Chair decides on the proposition as a whole that all local 
preachers seeking a renewal of their license must pass an 
examination. 

After having carefully examined the Paragraphs in the Disci¬ 
pline pertaining thereto, and especially Chapter I, entitled 
“Local Preachers,” Paragraphs 213, 219, inclusive; Discipline, 
1912; considering the history of the office, its object and pur¬ 
pose; the practice of the brethren in dealing with such office 
covering scores of years; not forgetting the remedial character 
of the legislation sought to be adopted; and also keeping in 
mind the principle that the “Letter killeth but the Spirit 
maketh alive,” we conclude and so hold that there are excep¬ 
tions with reference to the rule requiring local preachers to pass 
examinations. 

It appears that persons desiring to become local preachers 
may be classified as follows: 

Those who have been long in the work and have no desire or 
expectation of ever becoming traveling ministers. 

Men both old and young entering the ministry and who 
expect eventually to become traveling ministers. 

Local preachers desiring Deacon’s or Elder’s orders. 

Two kinds of examinations are contemplated. First, on the 


DECISIONS OF 1916 


187 


doctrine and rules of the Church. Second, as to literary quali¬ 
fications. The following from Merrill’s Digest, page 83, defines 
the boundaries of each: 

“This examination [as to doctrines, etc.] is not of a literary 
character, and should never be intrusted to a Committee. It 
must take place in the Conference [meaning the Quarterly or 
District Conference]. The examination on the course of study 
is different, and may be made by a Committee. All candidates 
before receiving a first license are to be examined in the common 
branches of an English education, and on their general knowl¬ 
edge of the Bible and of the doctrines and usages of the Church. 
These two examinations are distinct, and both requisite. After 
the license has been obtained the local preacher is required to 
enter upon the course of study prescribed by the Bishops, and to 
prosecute it regularly during the four years requisite for its 
completion, and this whether he contemplates ordination or 
not. The satisfactory examination is a condition of the re¬ 
newal of the license, from year to year, till the course is finished.” 

No course after the fourth year appears to have been pro¬ 
vided. It seems clear, therefore, that the provisions relative to 
examination were made to guard the door as against the entrance 
of new applicants with doubtful qualifications both literary and 
otherwise. It is unthinkable that the General Conference creat¬ 
ing the legislation under consideration would with one fell 
swoop deprive the Church of the services of a large number of 
local preachers who had for many, many years been working 
for their Master in the relation of a local preacher. While the 
General Conference doubtless had the power so to do, and if it 
had so acted, its action would not be subject to the objection of 
being retroactive, yet in the absence of any direct statement of 
its purpose so to do, we hold that the test of examinations must 
fall within the discretionary power of the Quarterly or District 
Conference, as the case may be, ';o proceed under Paragraph 214, 
Section 2, Discipline 1912: 

“And to renew licenses annually when in the judgment of 
the Conference their gifts, grace and usefulness, and their faith¬ 
fulness and proficiency in study, warrant such renewal.” 

Large discretion is given this Committee. 

If an old war horse for the cause appears the Conference would 
be expected to fit the examination to the man; if a younger man 
appeared who was a candidate for Deacon’s or Elder’s orders, or 
who was probably seeking to enter the local ministry hoping 
eventually to become a traveling minister, greater care would 
be taken and the course of study should be rigidly insisted upon. 
Nothing herein should be construed as letting down the bars 
upon the requirement of an educated, consecrated ministry, but 
to construe the legislation in the light of the conditions prevail¬ 
ing when such legislation was made. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


188 REPOETS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

Answering categorically the questions propounded, we answer: 

Question 1.—There are exceptions. 

Question 2.—Yes, except as to those who have been classified 
above (Ho. 1) as having been long in the work and have no desire 
or expectation of ever becoming traveling ministers, and who, in 
the opinion of the District or Quarterly Conference, it can be 
said of them that "their gifts, grace, and usefulness, and their 
faithfulness and proficiency in study warrant such renewal.” 

Question 3.—No; except for Deacon’s and Elder’s orders as 
provided by Paragraph 573, Section 2. 

Question 4.—Yes, unless an exception was noted at the time 
his license was renewed. 

Question 5.—No. 

Question 6.—No; if based on affirmative action of the District 
or Quarterly Conference. 

In so far as the decision of Bishop Cooke runs contrary to the 
above, the same is overruled. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 6 

Report No. 5 

COLORADO PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTION 

Your Committee on Judiciary recommends for your adoption 
the following: 

The proposition known as the Colorado proposed amendments 
having received the necessary two-thirds vote at the Annual Con¬ 
ferences and all constitutional requirements having been com¬ 
plied with, as shown by the certificate of the Secretary of the 
General Conference, there is but one question for determination, 
and that is, Does anything in the amendments violate any pro¬ 
vision of the Constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church? 
The Church has unrestricted power to make any Constitution or 
any rule it desires for its government, so long as that Constitu¬ 
tion or rule does not violate the law of the land in which 
the Church exists. The Church can impose upon itself restric¬ 
tions in making changes in its Constitution or its rules, and 
these restrictions are binding. The inquiry then is: Do the 
Colorado Proposed Amendments contain anything in violation 
of any restriction found in the Constitution of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church? A careful investigation of all the Restric¬ 
tive Rules discloses that none of them prohibit any change pro¬ 
posed in these amendments, and they are therefore constitu¬ 
tional. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 7 


6 Journal , 1916, pp. 423, 486-488. 

7 Ibid., pp. 423, 488, 489. 



DECISIONS OF 1916 


189 


Report No. 6 

APPEAL AGAINST ADMINISTRATION OF BISHOP HENDERSON 

Your Committee on Judiciary recommends for your adoption 
the following: 

The appeal of D. W. Fields, of the Tennessee Conference, of 
Memphis, relative to charges preferred against Bishop T. S. 
Henderson. The charges were sent to a District Superintendent, 
Rev. D. T. Burch, and accused the Bishop of having defamed 
the character of D. W. Fields in a letter sent by the Bishop to 
Mr. Fields in reply to one which the Bishop had received from 
him. The correspondence related to the sale of certain church 
property. The Bishop’s letter, it is alleged, accused Mr. Fields 
of “various and sundry acts.” It is also alleged that the letter 
written by the Bishop made false charges against him and 
evidenced malice and temper. 

It may be remarked that under the common law of the civil 
courts no action lies for defamatory statements written to the 
man himself who claims to have been defamed and which the 
writer exhibited to no third party. The reason is that the 
person addressed could not have been damaged by the false 
charge so made. 

A Committee of Investigation was convened under Para¬ 
graph 232 of the Discipline. The Committee investigated the 
charges and reported that the charges were not sustained. What 
the evidence was is not set forth in the record, beyond the two 
letters which were referred to. It is impossible, therefore, for 
this General Conference to find that the conclusion of the Com¬ 
mittee of Investigation should be set aside, even if it possesses 
the right to pass upon errors of fact. Whether it possesses the 
right to pass upon errors of fact is a question which need not be 
considered, as it is not now involved. As the record discloses no 
errors of law the appeal should be dismissed. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 8 

Report No. 7 

QUARTERLY CONFERENCE ERROR AS TO LAY DELEGATE 

Your Committee on Judiciary recommends for your adoption 
the following: 

The appeal of M. M. Callen, a member of the Michigan An¬ 
nual Conference, is from the action of that Conference in de¬ 
clining to act upon a complaint submitted to it alleging that 
there had been errors of administration in connection with the 
action of the Quarterly Conference of the First Methodist 
Episcopal Church of Grand Rapids. 


Question 
referred 
Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


8 Journal , 1912, pp. 423, 489. 



190 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


It appears that an election was held by the members of the 
church in the manner prescribed in the Discipline for the elec¬ 
tion of lay and reserve delegates. The Election Board took 
charge of the election, received and counted the ballots, and 
certified the whole number of votes cast and for whom cast to the 
Quarterly Conference. 

The certificate which the District Superintendent, who pre¬ 
sided in the Quarterly Conference, has submitted to the Judi¬ 
ciary Committee, and upon which he certified he and the Quar¬ 
terly Conference acted, states that the “total number of votes 
cast for lay delegates, forty-nine, of which number W. S. 
Graham received twenty; Mr. George B. Whitworth, nineteen; 
James Graham, two; C. P. Foote, two; E. R. Thompson, two; 
Elvin Swarthout, two; Harley Bertsch and Mr. Pollock, one 
each. Total number of votes cast for reserve lay delegate, forty, 
of which number Mr. Elvin Swarthout received thirteen; 
C. P. Foote, nine; E. R. Thompson, six; Dr. Duncan, 
three; Mrs. Paxton, Judge McDonald and W. S. Graham, two 
each; L. L. Skillman, L. T. Wilmarth, and Mrs. Vanboer, one 
each.” 

The Discipline , Paragraph 91, Section 2, makes it the duty 
of the Quarterly Conference, “To declare the result and give to 
the person receiving the highest number of votes for each place a 
certificate of election, which shall be signed by the District 
Superintendent, and the Secretary of the Quarterly Conference.” 
But instead of issuing the certificate to Mr. Graham according 
to the report as certified by the Election Board a motion was 
made that the Quarterly Conference decline to receive and con¬ 
sider the report. The District Superintendent entertained and 
put that motion, and it was adopted. He then solicited and 
entertained and put a motion that the Quarterly Conference 
proceed to take a ballot to elect a delegate to the Lay Electoral 
Conference, limiting the ballots to the two who received the 
highest number of votes at the church election, as certified by 
the Election Board. This motion was adopted. Twenty-four 
votes were cast and George B. Whitworth received eighteen; 
William S. Graham, three; and three blank votes were cast. 
Thereupon George B. Whitworth was declared elected the lay 
delegate. There is no authority whatever in the Discipline 
which authorizes a Quarterly Conference to elect by a vote of 
its own members, under any circumstances, a delegate to the 
Lay Electoral Conference. 

There is no authority known under which a Quarterly Con¬ 
ference, authorized to “declare the result” and give the certifi¬ 
cate of election to the person receiving the highest number of 
votes of the Church members, can set aside the vote as certified 
to by the officers of the Election Board and thereupon proceed to 
elect a delegate to the Lay Electoral Conference by vote of the 


DECISIONS OF 1916 


191 


Quarterly Conference itself. The action of the Quarterly Con¬ 
ference was in that respect wholly unwarranted and clearly un¬ 
lawful. 

Upon the certificate which the District Superintendent says 
was the one upon which he ruled and the Quarterly Conference 
acted, W. S. Graham was elected, having received the highest 
vote cast, and he should have been declared elected and been 
given his certificate of election. 

A Quarterly Conference is clothed by the Discipline with the 
quasi-judicial power of determining whether the certificate trans¬ 
mitted to it is or is not signed by the proper officers of the 
Election Board. If it is so signed, the certificate of election must 
be issued to the party who appears on the face of the trans¬ 
mitted certificate to have received the plurality of the votes cast. 
The Quarterly Conference powers are ministerial in respect to 
this matter. It has no more power to go behind the official re¬ 
turns made to it than a county or a State Canvassing Board in 
a popular election has to go behind the official returns made 
to it. The law is well established that Canvassing Boards possess 
no such power. In case the official returns do not truly certify 
the vote as actually cast the remedy is for the aggrieved party 
to contest the election before a tribunal authorized to act in re¬ 
spect thereto. The certificate issued by a Quarterly Conference 
is only prima facie evidence that the one to whom it is issued is 
entitled to sit in the Lay Electoral Conference. That body, but 
not the Quarterly Conference, may go behind the certificate, 
inquire into the facts, and award the seat to the contestant if 
it finds him entitled thereto. 

Paragraph 39 of the Discipline, Section 3, provides that 
“the Lay Electoral Conference shall be the judge of the election 
returns and qualifications of its own members.” 

Mr. Graham unquestionably had the right to submit the facts 
to the Lay Electoral Conference which had full power to investi¬ 
gate the matter. That Conference might have properly dis¬ 
regarded the certificate issued by the Quarterly Conference, and 
should have seated Mr. Graham if satisfied that he actually re¬ 
ceived a plurality of the votes cast at the church election. 
Under the ruling made by the last General Conference a 
plurality of the votes cast is sufficient for an election, in the 
absence of proof that a contrary rule governing the election had 
been established. 

It does not appear in the paper submitted what the reasons 
were which influenced the Quarterly Conference to disregard the 
Election Board’s certificate. And it is immaterial what their 
reasons may have been. The Quarterly Conference committed 
two errors: 

1. In going behind and disregarding the official certificate of 
the Election Board. 


192 RETORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


2. In proceeding itself to elect by a vote of its own members 
the lay delegate. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 9 

Report No. 8 

POWER OF ANNUAL CONFERENCES TO ENTERTAIN CHARGES 

Your Committee on Judiciary recommends for your adoption 
the following: 

The facts upon which this appeal has been taken are as 
follows: Charges were preferred against a member of the Wil¬ 
mington Conference and the Annual Conference declined to 
entertain the charges. The appellant asked for a ruling by the 
President of the Conference as to whether it was lawful for the 
Conference to pass a motion declining to entertain the charges. 
The Bishop presiding held: “Under the law an Annual Confer¬ 
ence may put on trial an accused member when there has been 
no previous investigation, but the Conference may decline by 
formal vote to entertain the charges.” From this decision the 
appeal is taken. Appellant cites Paragraph 256 of the Disci¬ 
pline, 1912, which reads: “The Annual Conference at its dis¬ 
cretion may try an accused member by one of the following 
methods” [giving these methods] ; and states that his appeal re¬ 
quires a judicial decision as to the proper interpretation of the 
Paragraph stating that the question at issue is, “Does the word 
hnay ? as used in the Paragraph give discretionary powers to an 
Annual Conference as to the method of trial, or as to whether 
the charges shall be entertained ?” Stated another way the ques¬ 
tion seems to be, Does the Annual Conference have discretionary 
powers when charges are preferred against a member of Confer¬ 
ence as to whether the charges must be entertained, and the 
accused put on trial? Paragraph 253 of the Discipline is as 
follows: “An Annual Conference may entertain and try charges 
against the members though no investigation upon them has 
been held, or though the investigation has not resulted in sus¬ 
pension, due notice having been given the accused.” If the 
Conference has the power to entertain and try charges, the 
plain inference is that it may refuse to entertain and try charges, 
and based on this Paragraph the ruling of the President of the 
Annual Conference was correct and must be sustained. 

It is therefore held that an Annual Conference has the right 
to refuse to entertain charges preferred against a member, and 
that one so accused does not have to be tried if the Conference 
refuses to entertain the charges. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 10 


Conference 

action 


9 Journal , 1916, pp. 423, 489-492. 

10 Ibid., pp. 423, 492. 



DECISIONS OF 1916 


193 


Report No. 9 

APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BISHOP HENDERSON 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having carefully reviewed the 
records in the appeals of J. M. Emert et al, from the decision 
of Bishop T. S. Henderson in the case of Rev. J. G. Cairns, of 
the Holston Conference, respectfully report as follows : 

The Committee is of the opinion that there was no error of 
law or administration in the adjournment of the sessions of the 
trial court, the Annual Conference not having been finally ad¬ 
journed. 

In the matter of the testimony of G. W. Coleman, your Com¬ 
mittee is of the opinion that said testimony was not relevant, 
and was inadmissible as evidence for the purpose for which it 
was offered. 

Regarding Exhibits Nos. 10 and 11, the Committee is of 
the opinion that the letters in question could not be properly 
admitted as evidence in this case, under the hearsay rule. For 
these reasons the appeal should be dismissed. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 11 

Report No. 10 

QUESTIONS AS TO CONFERENCE CLAIMANTS 

Your Committee on Judiciary recommends for your adoption 
the following: 

The Conference having referred to the Judiciary Committee 
the inquiries of Wilbur Fletcher Steele, of the Colorado Confer¬ 
ence, the following report thereon is submitted: 

1. To the question whether the annuity claim of the widow of 
a traveling preacher becomes extinct upon her marrying another 
traveling preacher of our Church, or whether under such cir¬ 
cumstances it becomes merely dormant, to revive upon her again 
becoming a widow, the following answer is returned: 

Paragraph 323, Section 2, provides that the widows of de¬ 
ceased ministers are Conference Claimants “during their 
widowhood,” and while they remain members of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. It is therefore our opinion that upon the 
marriage of a widow of a deceased minister she ceases to have 
any right as the widow of her first husband to be regarded as a 
Conference Claimant; and if she survives her second husband 
her right as the widow of her first husband does not revive, hav¬ 
ing been extinguished upon her second marriage; and if her 
second husband was also a traveling preacher of our Church she 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


11 Journal, 1916, pp. 423, 493. 



194 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


would be again entitled to be a Conference Claimant as the 
widow of her second husband but not otherwise. 

2. To the question whether upon promotion to the Retired 
Relation the minister thus retired has a legal right to demand 
his year’s annuity in advance, the following answer is returned: 

The Discipline is silent as to the time of payment to retired 
ministers. In the absence of any legislation on the subject by 
the General Conference we think the Board of Conference 
Claimants has the right to determine at what times the payment 
shall be made out of the income of the Connectional Permanent 
Fund. And that out of the fund which an Annual Conference 
holds in its own right, and which has not been derived from 
the Board of Conference Claimants, payment shall be made at 
such times as the Annual Conference may determine. If moneys 
have been received from the Board of Conference Claimants, 
and if that Board has not determined the times of payment, then 
the Annual Conference may itself determine, as to the moneys so 
received, the times of payment. We do not understand that a 
Retired minister has the legal right to demand the payment of 
his year’s annuity all in advance. 

3. To the question, whether it involves a hardship upon the 
annuitant if a Conference Claimant is not paid his annuity in 
advance, the following answer is returned: The question asked is 
not judicial. If the propounder of the question thinks it does 
involve hardship, he should seek legislation upon the subject, to 
remedy the wrong done. 

4. To the question, “Is not liberality thereby exercised by the 
Church ?” the following answer is returned: The question is not 
judicial and the Committee does not feel authorized to make 
other answer. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 12 


Report No. 11 

PROCEEDINGS OF CHURCH TRIAL SET ASIDE 

Your Committee on Judiciary recommends for your adoption 
the following: 

In the matter of the appeal of Martha Sewall the facts so far 
as disclosed by the papers are as follows: 

Petitioner was a member of Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal 
Church, of Washington, D. C., of which Rudolph Wheeler was 
and is a Deacon and local preacher. 

She presented a complaint against him, charging him with 
immorality and falsehood, in that he had seduced her under 


12 Journal, 1916, pp. 423, 493, 494. 



DECISIONS OF 1916 


195 


promise of marriage, with the not unusual result that a child 
was born, and he refused to marry her. 

A preliminary hearing was held before three local preachers 
of other churches, of which she knew nothing until she was 
asked to appear before them. The accused attended with counsel 
and witnesses; she had no opportunity to offer either; but the 
pastor of another church, apparently a just man, but unskilled 
in trials, was appointed by the pastor of the Ebenezer Meth¬ 
odist Episcopal Church to prosecute the case. The result was 
an acquittal of the accused. 

From that decision petitioner appealed to a District Confer¬ 
ence, and the matter was heard September 10, 1915. She was 
told by the prosecutor that she could not produce witnesses, but 
that the trial would be had upon the report of the proceedings 
at the preliminary hearing and upon affidavits. She supplied 
affidavits, some of which were used, but those setting forth the 
confessions of the accused to various witnesses were not offered. 
Part of the proceedings before the preliminary hearing was 
admitted and part excluded. The accused and his witnesses were 
present and testified orally, the former in a sentence denying 
the charge, and the latter simply asserting that he administered 
the sacraments satisfactorily. The accused was not cross ex¬ 
amined ; his witnesses were asked only if they knew anything on 
the subject matter of the charge. The part of the preliminary 
proceedings which was excluded related to the birth of the 
child. 

Subsequently the pastor of the church demanded of appellant 
that she sign certain papers, which she did without being told 
of their contents, as she avers. Their contents are not disclosed 
in the record. This was followed by her expulsion from the 
Church without trial. 

Your Committee is of the opinion that the whole of the pro¬ 
ceedings should be set aside, and the matter referred back for a 
trial in accordance with the Discipline. By Paragraph 303 
thereof petitioner was entitled to have written notice of the 
time and place of trial, and to have written notice issue in the 
name of the church, signed by the President or last appointed 
Secretary, and directed to her witnesses, and she and her wit¬ 
nesses were entitled to be heard orally before the trial court. 
Of all these rights she was denied. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 13 

Keport No. 12 

MEMORIAL ON BOUNDARIES REFERRED TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

On the memorial sent to us from the Committee on Bound- 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


13 Journal , 1916, pp. 431, 494, 495. 



196 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


Question 

referred 


aries by order of the General Conference we beg leave to report 
as follows: 

This memorial presents two questions: The first question is: 
What constitutes a legal notice under Paragraph 484? 

To this question we return the following answer: A legal 
notice under Paragraph 484 should specifically indicate the 
source from which it comes, whether from an Annual or Mission 
Conference or Mission, or from a majority of the District Super¬ 
intendents and Mission Superintendents, as the case might be. 
It also should state the purpose of the Conference, or the 
District Superintendents by whom the notice is given, to present 
the request for a change of boundaries to the General Confer¬ 
ence, and should further indicate, in general terms, the char¬ 
acter of the change in boundaries which is sought to be effected. 
The notice should be served upon or delivered to the Secretary 
of any and every Conference to be affected by the proposed 
change. 

The second question is this: Has the Kansas Conference been 
legally notified of the purpose of the Northwest Kansas Confer¬ 
ence, and is the case legally before the Committee on 
Boundaries ? 

Upon this question there have been submitted statements from 
each of the Conferences concerned. These statements are in 
substantial agreement as to the facts, but differ in their interpre¬ 
tation of the facts. The Northwest Kansas Conference affirms 
and the Kansas Conference denies that legal notice under Para¬ 
graph 484 was given to the Kansas Conference. The facts in 
which both statements agree are that the Northwest Kansas 
Conference at its session in 1915 adopted resolutions proposing 
a readjustment of the boundary between that Conference and the 
Kansas Conference, providing for the creation of a Commission 
to represent the said Northwest Kansas Conference in effecting 
such readjustment, and requesting the Kansas Conference to 
raise a like Commission, in order that the matter might be 
properly presented to the General Conference of 1916. Due 
notice of this action was served upon the Kansas Conference. 
This Conference voted not to concur in the request of the North¬ 
west Kansas Conference, in consequence of which nonconcurrence 
the whole proposed action under Paragraph 483 fell to the 
ground. 

It does not appear from the statement submitted by the North¬ 
west Kansas Conference that notice was given of any proposed 
Disciplinary action other than the request for the creation of a 
Commission as provided in Paragraph 483. It further appears 
that, although the vote of the Kansas Conference not to concur 
in the request of the Northwest Kansas Conference was duly 
communicated to that Conference, no action was taken by the 
Northwest Kansas Conference upon the said communication, 
and no notice of any other action upon the part of the North- 


DECISIONS OF 1916 


197 


west Kansas Conference was given either at that time or subse¬ 
quently. 

We therefore answer that, while the notice sent to the Kansas 
Conference was a sufficient legal notice of action under Para¬ 
graph 483, it was not in any sense a legal notice of action under 
Paragraph 484, which is an entirely different proceeding and 
not even implied in notice of action under Paragraph 483, 
that the Kansas Conference has not been legally notified of the 
purpose of the Northwest Kansas Conference, and that the case 
is not legally before the Committee on Boundaries. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 14 


Report No. 13 

JUDGMENT OF JUDICIAL CONFERENCE AFFIRMED 

Your Committee on Judiciary recommends for your adoption 
the following: 

At a Judicial Conference held at Memphis, Tennessee, October 
7, 1913, at which were heard the appeals of W. H. Nelson, of 
Central Alabama Conference; T. H. Munson, of Louisiana Con¬ 
ference; and M. N. Langston, of Little Rock Conference, each 
appeal was dismissed, and in each case the judgment of the 
Conference expelling appellant from the ministry and the Church 
was made absolute. The findings of the Judicial Conference in 
these several cases were reported by the Secretary thereof to 
Secretary of the General Conference in one document, acting 
under Paragraph 286, Discipline, sending therewith the records 
of the several trials. No one seems, in either case, to be inter¬ 
ested in asking your Committee to review the proceedings. We 
have, however, considered each record, and find nothing which 
suggests that, in any case, injustice was done. 

We, therefore, determine that, in each case, the judgment of 
the Judicial Conference should be, and it is, affirmed. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 15 


Report No. 14 

FORMER JEOPARDY; APPEAL DISMISSED 

This is an appeal from a decision of Jabez G. Moore, Chair¬ 
man of the Select Number, constituted by the North Dakota 
Conference at its annual session of October, 1915, to try the 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


14 Journal, 1916, pp. 431, 495, 496. 
«Ibid pp. 431, 496, 497. 



198 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


appellee, Samuel Alexander Danford, a minister of that Con¬ 
ference and District Superintendent of the Bismarck District, 
upon a charge of immoral conduct. 

The complaint in this proceeding alleged lying as the sub¬ 
stance of the offense committed, and contained eleven separate 
specifications. Upon the trial, the charges embraced in eight of 
these specifications were dismissed upon the ground that with 
reference to them the accused had been once in jeopardy; and 
upon the other three counts the defendant was acquitted. From 
the decision dismissing the complaint as to the eight counts above 
referred to, this appeal is taken. 

This question of previous jeopardy has reference to the pro¬ 
ceedings had relating to the subject of this controversy during 
the session of the Annual Conference of 1914. 

While the record of the proceedings taken concerning the 
matters herein involved during the session of the Annual Con¬ 
ference of 1914 is not as complete as might be desired, still the 
complaint in this proceeding lodged with the Annual Conference 
of 1915 contained the following statement with reference there¬ 
to : 

“To the Bishop in charge of the North Dakota Annual Con¬ 
ference : At the 1914 session of the North Dakota Annual Con¬ 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church several brethren made 
complaint against the character of Samuel Alexander Danford, 
a member of said Conference. The result was that the said Dan¬ 
ford in the presence of witnesses signed a confession of lying, 
made profession of penitence for his sin, and promise of restitu¬ 
tion, truthfulness, and brotherly behavior thenceforth—said 
written confession being filed among the official documents of 
said Conference.” 

Immediately thereafter, in the following language, the com¬ 
plaint explains the reason for instituting this proceeding before 
the Annual Conference of 1915: 

“The conditions on which this confession was accepted at the 
time by the complainants have not been, complied with, his 
promises have not been fulfilled, and his false and unbrotherly 
conduct has continued. Now, therefore, we, the undersigned 
members of the North Dakota Annual Conference of the Meth¬ 
odist Episcopal Church, complain to you that the said Samuel 
Alexander Danford, a member of said Annual Conference, has 
been guilty of immoral conduct, and he is hereby charged there¬ 
with as follows 

The confession above referred to, which was executed by the 
defendant Danford and filed among the official documents of the 
Conference at the annual session of 1914, is set up in the brief 
of the complainant herein, and may be properly considered as 
before us. It is broad in its terms, and seems to be intended to 
cover all misleading and false statements and actions said and 


DECISIONS OF 1916 


199 


done up to that time, as well as the specific offenses set forth 
in the confession. After making such confession, the character 
of said Danford was passed and the annual session of the Con¬ 
ference of 1914 closed without any further steps being taken 
against him. 

Furthermore, a resolution of harmony was passed at that ses¬ 
sion of the Conference covering the matters of educational policy 
and religious emphasis, which questions had evidently given rise 
to this controversy and been in some measure the occasion of 
the misconduct to which the defendant Danford had confessed. 

While, in a strictly legal sense, the proceedings taken at the 
time of the Annual Conference of 1914 did not constitute 
previous jeopardy as to the matters contained in the eight counts 
which were dismissed at the trial, still the subject was dealt 
with in such manner as to lead the parties concerned to consider 
the complaint disposed of. 

Moreover, by interposing the plea of former jeopardy at the 
trial which took place at the Conference of 1915, the defendant 
in effect took the position that the proceedings above described, 
which took place in 1914, were equivalent to a trial and con¬ 
viction of himself for the offenses embraced in his written con¬ 
fession, and also that such written confession related to the same 
matters that were contained in the eight counts which were dis¬ 
missed by the decision appealed from; and it would seem that 
by such plea of former jeopardy the defendant had, in substance, 
reaffirmed his confession and promise of restitution and future 
good conduct. 

As to the appellant, we would say that the reason given in the 
complaint lodged with the Conference of 1915 for making the 
same was that the defendant Danford had not kept his promise 
made at the time of his confession but has violated the same 
and committed subsequent offenses. 

The Select Number, however, acquitted the defendant upon 
the charge of such default and subsequent misconduct, and thus 
removed the grounds set forth for making the complaint. 

In view of the situation as above outlined, we discover no 
sufficient reason for the further continuance of this litigation, 
and therefore recommend that the appeal be dismissed. 

Presented and adopted, May 26. 16 

Report No. 15 

CONSOLIDATED CHURCHES; USE OF PROPERTY 

Your Committee on Judiciary respectfully recommends for 
your adoption the following: 

In the matter of the appeal of N. C. Thorne your Committee 
on Judiciary would respectfully report: 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


16 Journal , 1916, pp. 438, 497-499. 



200 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


That with the consent of both congregations the Grace Meth¬ 
odist Episcopal Church and the First Methodist Episcopal 
Church, respectively owning properties at Third and Taylor 
Streets and Twelfth and Taylor Streets, Portland, Oregon, were 
consolidated into one corporation. On October 13, 1913, the 
Quarterly Conference approved a resolution of the Board of 
Trustees of the consolidated Church in deciding that the chief 
services of the Church should be held at Twelfth and Taylor 
Streets, and only “such services at Third and Taylor Streets as 
may be necessary in order to comply with the law.” No one 
objected thereto at that time, but this appellant at the next 
Quarterly Conference, held three months later, requested the 
District Superintendent to compel the pastor to hold regular 
services at the Third and Taylor Streets Church, because of a 
provision in the deed therefor that the property was purchased 
for the purpose of a church or parsonage, and because the pas¬ 
tor at the preceding Annual Conference was assigned to the 
church which then worshiped only at Third and Taylor Streets. 
The pastor and a number of the other members objected, and the 
District Superintendent ruled that, as the Board of Trustees had 
decided that an emergency existed, they had the right under 
Paragraph 342 of the Discipline to make the order they did. 
Appellant then appealed to the Bishop presiding at the next An¬ 
nual Conference, and he sustained the decision of the District 
Superintendent, and from that decision the appeal is taken. At 
the same Annual Conference the assignment of a pastor was to 
the consolidated Church, and not to the Third and Taylor 
Streets Church. 

In the meantime this appellant and others began suit in the 
Courts of Oregon to have it decided that, under the deed to the 
Third and Taylor Streets Church, the property could only be 
used for Church purposes. The Supreme Court of Oregon de¬ 
cided against appellant and his associates, and held that the 
consolidated Church could use the property for such purposes 
as it deemed best, but refused to pass upon the question as to 
whether or not the property could be sold by the consolidated 
church. 

No evidence was produced before us to show whether or not 
an emergency did exist. In our opinion the appeal should be dis¬ 
missed. 

1st. Because the question has become solely a moot one. The 
appointment of a pastor for the Third and Taylor Streets 
Church, even if so made at the Annual Conference of 1913, 
ended with the next Annual Conference, and at and after that 
time no appointment was made for that church specifically. 

2d. We are alike without power or evidence to decide whether 
or not an emergency did exist at the time the Board of Trustees 
adopted its resolution, or at the time the Quarterly Conference, 


DECISIONS OF 1916 201 

the Bishop, the District Superintendent, and the pastor approved 
it. Presumably they are right and appellant is wrong, and we 
have been given no authority or evidence to review their action. 

What has been above said disposes also of the memorial of 
Miss Ruth Wiedrick and others dealing with the same subject, 
which memorial, moreover, is not properly before us, because not 
referred to us by the General Conference. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 17 

Report No. 16 

MEMORIAL RELATIVE TO A SUPREME COURT 

Your Committee on Judiciary recommends for your adoption 
the following: 

The Committee on Judiciary has had under consideration the 
memorial of Charles A. J. Walker, referred to it by the action 
of the General Conference. The memorial relates to the estab¬ 
lishment of a Court of Appeals. The Court, as suggested in the 
memorial, is to consist of fifteen members—three Bishops, six 
ministers, and six laymen. It is proposed that the General Con¬ 
ference shall appoint a Committee of three Bishops, three min¬ 
isters, and three laymen, and that this Committee shall nominate 
the members for election by the General Conference. 

It is proposed that at the first election three ministers and 
three laymen shall be nominated and elected to serve for four 
years, and three ministers and three laymen to serve eight years, 
and that the Bishops shall be elected quadrennially. It is also 
suggested that after the first election all elections to membership 
in the Court, except for Episcopal members and to fill vacancies, 
shall be for the full term of eight years. It is our opinion that, 
if a Supreme Court of Appeals were to be established, its mem¬ 
bership ought not to be composed of three or other number of 
Bishops. One reason for so thinking, and that is in our judg¬ 
ment a conclusive objection to the suggestion, is that no man 
should sit in review of his own rulings. And another objection 
is that the plan suggested provides for a Court consisting of 
nine ecclesiastics and six laymen. This impresses us as an un¬ 
wise distribution of the membership. The majority of the 
members of such a court should be lawyers. Moreover, we are 
of the opinion that the membership of the Court as proposed is 
unnecessarily large. 

The above suggestions, however, are matters of detail which 
might easily be modified, if the plan proposed could be regarded 
as practicable and wise. The plan submitted provides that the 
decisions of the Court shall be submitted to the General Con¬ 
ference, and are not to become effective until approved by the 


17 Journal, 1916, pp. 431, 499, 500. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 



Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


202 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

General Conference. Such a requirement seems to us, in a large 
degree, to negative the good results which the creation of a 
Supreme Court of Appeals might otherwise accomplish. If such 
a Court could be authorized to finally decide all appeals each 
year without being compelled to submit their decisions to the 
General Conference every four years, the advantage of the pro¬ 
posal would be most beneficial. The delay of three or four years 
in the final settlement of judicial controversies, necessitated by 
having to wait the final decision of a General Conference which 
will meet once in four years, is often most detrimental. To 
delay justice is often to deny it. But the delays and consequent 
wrongs, which result from the existing system of our judicial 
administration are not obviated under the plan proposed by Mr. 
Walker. This can only be done by creating a Court which shall 
have power finally to decide cases, at least certain classes of 
cases, without being compelled to submit the decisions to the 
approval of the General Conference. 

Decisions which must be without effect until approved by the 
General Conference decide nothing. Until the General Confer¬ 
ence is prepared to create an Ecclesiastical Court with full power 
finally to decide questions submitted to it, we can see no great 
merit in establishing a Court of less comprehensive jurisdiction. 

There is another reason why in our opinion no action should 
be taken by this General Conference looking to the establishment 
of a Supreme Court of Appeals. In view of the present rela¬ 
tions between our Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, and the possibility that organic union may soon become 
an established fact, we think that the whole subject may be very 
well postponed until it has been determined whether the two 
bodies are to be one. 

The Committee recommends that the plan proposed be there¬ 
fore disapproved. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 18 

Report No. 17 

LOCAL PREACHERS AS CONFERENCE CLAIMANTS 

The General Conference of 1912, as shown on page 626 of the 
Journal, adopted the following: 

“An Annual Conference by a two-thirds vote of those present 
and voting may accept as a Conference Claimant a local preacher 
who has served as a supply pastor within its bounds for fifteen 
consecutive years; provided, that any appropriation for such 
claimant shall be taken from the funds collected by and for 
said Conference; and also that the widow of such claimant may 
likewise be aided from the same fund.” 


18 Journal, 1916, pp. 431, 500, 501. 



DECISIONS OF 1916 


203 


To the question as to the legality of the foregoing the follow¬ 
ing answer is returned: 

Paragraph 323, Section 2 of the Discipline, 1912, defines Con¬ 
ference Claimants as being ‘‘Retired Ministers, the widows of de¬ 
ceased ministers (during their widowhood, and while they re¬ 
main members of the Methodist Episcopal Church), and their 
children under sixteen years of age.” A local preacher em¬ 
ployed as a supply pastor is not a retired minister, and there¬ 
fore cannot under any conditions be accepted as a Conference 
claimant within the meaning of that term as used in the Disci¬ 
pline. 

To the question as to what funds, if any, an Annual Confer¬ 
ence can use to aid local preachers in their old age, the follow¬ 
ing answer is returned: Dividends derived from the Board of 
Conference Claimants, from Annual Conference invested funds, 
from Preachers’ Aid Societies, from organizations and funds of 
similar character, from The Book Concern, from the Chartered 
Fund, and from the regular gifts of the churches for the min¬ 
isterial support of Conference Claimants, are all sacredly 
guarded, both by the Sixth Restrictive Rule and by the several 
provisions of the Discipline touching on this matter, for the 
benefit of those regular Conference Claimants whose station is 
fixed in Paragraph 323, Section 2. Moneys derived from any 
of these sources cannot be appropriated to the relief of local 
preachers who have served as supply pastors. 

The question then arises: May an Annual Conference make 
provision for the relief of local preachers who have given long 
and faithful service as supply pastors? To this we reply that 
such provision, in our judgment, would be entirely proper, if an 
Annual Conference wishes so to do, but such aid must be from 
funds other than those raised for Conference Claimants, and 
from funds which must have been raised specifically for the 
aid of persons other than Conference Claimants. 

Presented and adopted, May 26. 19 

Report No. 18 

ADJOURNED SESSION OF GENERAL CONFERENCE 

The General Conference has referred to this Committee the 
question whether there is any constitutional hindrance to the 
adjournment of this General Conference, to meet subject to the 
call of the Bishops, at such time and place as they shall deter¬ 
mine; in order that immediate action may be taken for the 
complete union of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

To this question we return the following answer: 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


19 Journal, 1916, pp. 438, 502. 



204 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


The General Conference may adjourn in either of three ways: 
(1) It may adjourn sine die; (2) or it may adjourn to a definite 
day; (3) or it may adjourn subject to call. 

If it adjourns sine die , its existence ends with the adjourn¬ 
ment, and if it becomes necessary thereafter and prior to the 
time when the next General Conference convenes, then the 
Bishops, or a majority of them, by and with the advice of two 
thirds of all the Annual Conferences, have the power to call 
an extra session of the General Conference at any time, consti¬ 
tuted in the usual way. If such an emergency arises, two thirds 
of the Bishops may call special sessions of the Annual Con¬ 
ferences to meet at such time and place as they may think 
wise, to elect delegates thereto. They may also in such cases call 
extra sessions of the Lay Electoral Conferences for the elec¬ 
tion of lay delegates. Authority is vested in the Bishops to thus 
proceed by virtue of Paragraph 41, Sections 2 and 3 of the 
Discipline. 

There is nothing, however, in the Constitution of the Church 
which deprives the General Conference of the right, which all 
assemblies possess, of adjourning to a day fixed, or subject to 
the call of a designated officer or officers. 

Paragraph 41, Section 1, of the Discipline fixes the time when 
the General Conference assembles. It is to meet on the first 
secular day in the month of May in every fourth year from the 
date of the first delegated General Conference. But nowhere 
in the Discipline is a time fixed when a General Conference once 
assembled must adjourn sine die, except that it must come to an 
end within the four-year period from the time when it assembled 
and the time fixed in the Discipline for the assembling of the 
next succeeding General Conference. It may therefore remain 
in session, if it should choose to do so, throughout the whole of 
the quadrennium. The General Conference may at any time 
adjourn to any day it may agree upon, provided the day fixed 
is within a period of four years from the date when it first 
assembled; and if, instead of fixing a day when it shall assemble, 
not having adjourned sine die, it sees fit to adjourn subject to the 
call of the Bishops, if the call is made within the four-year 
period. 

The fact that a General Conference has never exercised the 
right to adjourn subject to call is no proof that it has not the 
right to do so. The General Conference has never declared that 
the right to do so does not exist. And there is no provision in 
the Constitution which expressly or impliedly prohibits it. 

Paragraph 41, Sections 2 and 3 of the Discipline, providing 
for extra sessions has no bearing upon this question. 

Presented and adopted, May 22. 20 


20 Journal , 1916, pp. 402, 502-504. 



DECISIONS OF 1916 


205 


Repoet No. 19 

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DOCTRINAL QUESTION IN RITUAL 

[This report was duly presented by the Chairman of the Com¬ 
mittee on Judiciary; a minority report was also presented, and 
the motion was made that it be substituted for the majority 
report. On motion, “the matter was postponed until the next 
session of the General Conference.” 21 ] 

Report No. 20 

TWO-THIRDS VOTE IN GENERAL CONFERENCE ON CONSTITUTIONAL 
AMENDMENTS 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having been requested by the 
General Conference to give an opinion on the question as to 
whether “the passage of a constitutional question through the 
General Conference requires a vote of two thirds of the entire 
membership of the General Conference or a vote of two thirds 
of those present and voting,” returns the following answer: 

To amend the Constitution the amendment must obtain the 
approval “of two thirds of all the members of the several Annual 
Conferences ‘present and voting/” as well as “two thirds of all 
the members of the Lay Electoral Conferences present and vot¬ 
ing.” But it is provided that as respects the General Confer¬ 
ence the amendment must have received a “two-thirds vote” 
omitting the words “two thirds of those present and voting.” 
The change of phraseology certainly has significance, and the 
words used must be taken into consideration in arriving at the 
true meaning. When a Constitution or a statute requires an 
officer to be chosen or a question decided by a majority of the 
votes this does not mean that the result shall be determined by a 
majority of those entitled to vote, but only that it is necessary 
to obtain a majority of those present and voting. All qualified 
voters who are absent, and those who are present but who do not 
vote, are presumed to assent to the will of those who actually 
vote, unless the law otherwise declares. The same principle 
is applied to the requirement of a two-thirds vote. Any other 
rule would be productive of the greatest inconvenience, and 
ought not to be adopted unless a contrary intention is clearly 
expressed. And the question is whether the change in phrase¬ 
ology already referred to clearly expresses in this case that con¬ 
trary intention. At first blush it seems to do so. 

The Congress of the United States can submit for ratification 
to the several States an amendment to the Constitution, provided 
it has been approved by “two thirds of both houses.” The two 
houses of Congress have uniformly held in respect to the above 

21 Journal, 1916, pp. 443, 722-726. For text of reports, see Part II, pp. 
266-271. 


Matter 

postponed 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 



206 REPOETS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


provision that if at the time the vote is taken a quorum is 
present, the House is constituted and it suffices if two thirds 
of the quorum vote affirmatively, and that it is not necessary 
that two thirds of the entire membership should be recorded in 
its favor. The question arose in the first Congress when the 
first amendment to the Constitution was proposed. It received 
a vote of two thirds of the quorum but not of two thirds of the 
entire membership. The ruling then made has been ever since 
uniformly adhered to. When it was challenged in the House of 
Representatives in May, 1898, when Mr. Reed was Speaker, he 
adhered to the previous rulings and said: “The question is one 
that has been so often decided that it seems hardly necessary to 
dwell upon it .” 

A similar interpretation is placed by State Legislatures upon 
like clauses in State Constitutions. So a similar construction 
has been given by the courts to like words in legislative acts. 

The General Conference should follow these precedents unless 
there is controlling reason why that cannot be done. It may 
be argued that we cannot follow the rulings and decisions to 
which we have referred, because of the unusual and peculiar 
phraseology used in the Constitution of the Church to which at¬ 
tention has already been called. That language seems to indi¬ 
cate that while two thirds “of those present and voting” suffices 
in the case of Annual and Lay Electoral Conferences, it does 
not suffice in case of the General Conference, inasmuch as 
“present and voting” are not used in speaking of the vote of 
that body. We think the distinction would be conclusive of the 
question were it not for the facts to which we now direct 
attention. 

The General Conference is what is known in law as a “defi¬ 
nite” body, and its quorum is fixed by the Constitution. In 
Paragraph 44 it is provided that “When the General Conference 
is in session it should require the presence of two thirds of the 
whole number of delegates to constitute a quorum for the trans¬ 
action of business.” 

On the other hand the annual Lay Electoral Conferences 
are “indefinite” bodies. The Constitution does not expressly 
declare what number shall constitute a quorum as respects either 
of them. Ordinarily, therefore, we should look to the common 
law rule to find out the number which constitutes the quorum. 
And the common law principle is that if any act is done by an 
indefinite body, it is valid if done by a majority of those present 
at the meeting, if there are more than two present, no matter 
how small a proportion they may be of the whole number en¬ 
titled to be present. 

That the Annual Conference is an “indefinite” and not a 
“definite” body is undisputed. The Bishops in November, 1910, 
ruled that “an Annual Conference is not a self-constituted 


DECISIONS OF 1916 


207 


organization, but is a body created for specific purposes, and 
has no power to establish any definite or proportionate number 
as a quorum for the transaction of the business of the Confer¬ 
ence.” The ruling was at the meeting of the General Confer¬ 
ence of 1912 referred to the Judiciary Committee, and that 
Committee recommended that the ruling be approved, and its 
recommendation was accepted. Bishop Neely, in his article in 
the Methodist Review for March and April, 1916, p. 248, says 
that from the beginning of our history as many of the min¬ 
isters as came together to confer constituted the quorum. He 
adds that this principle has ever since persisted in all our Con¬ 
ferences in American Methodism, with the single exception of 
the General Conference. He was not discussing the question 
now submitted to this Committee, but we think that his state¬ 
ment shows that by a usage which has been uniform and un¬ 
interrupted from the beginning of American Methodism, in all 
our Conferences except the General Conference, those who met 
to do the business were entitled to do it whether a common law 
quorum was present or not. This being the case, we can clearly 
understand why Paragraph 47 provides that the vote for the 
adoption of an amendment to the Constitution must receive a 
two-thirds vote in the Annual and Lay Electoral Conferences 
of those “present and voting,” and why the words are omitted 
as respects the General Conference. In the one case those “pres¬ 
ent and voting” constitute the quorum, no matter how few they 
may be. In the other case it is expressly enacted that there is 
no quorum unless two thirds of the whole body are present. 
With this explanation of the difference in the phraseology em¬ 
ployed we see no reason why the General Conference should 
not follow the rule adopted by the courts, State Legislatures, 
and Congress, and hold that the two-thirds vote of the General 
Conference necessary to the adoption of an amendment to the 
Constitution means two thirds of a quorum and not two thirds 
of the entire membership. 

In the General Conference of 1912 the vote on the amend¬ 
ment proposed authorizing the election of a Bishop or Bishops 
for work among particular races and languages was announced 
as 520 ayes and 45 nays, and therefore adopted by the General 
Conference. This statement was challenged by a member, who 
declared it had not passed the Conference by a constitutional 
vote, as it had not received the two-thirds vote of the entire mem¬ 
bership of the body. His statement was not contradicted by the 
Conference. It is therefore urged by some that the question can¬ 
not be contradicted now, and that his remark being unchallenged 
at the time settled the constitutional principle in accordance with 
his statement. It is surely unnecessary to say that constitu¬ 
tional principles cannot be settled anywhere in any such manner. 

Importance has been attached by some to the fact that an entry 


Finding of 
Committee 


208 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


in the General Conference Journal of 1856, page 154, records 
that the vote in favor of a Constitutional change states that it 
was “adopted by a vote of more than two thirds of all the mem¬ 
bers” of the Conference. That may or may not indicate that, in 
the opinion of the Secretary who made the entry, it required a 
two-thirds vote of all the members, but the question was never 
passed upon by the Judiciary Committee, and the entry affords 
no judicial precedent. 

The conclusion of the matter is that “the two-thirds vote” of 
a General Conference required under Paragraph 47 of the 
Discipline means two thirds of the quorum present and voting, 
and not two thirds of the entire membership of the body. Much 
more instructive, although not conclusive, because never passed 
on judicially, was the action of the General Conference in 1844. 
In that Conference the following resolution was introduced and 
put on its passage: “Resolved, That it requires two thirds of all 
the members to alter or recommend any change in the Restric¬ 
tive Rules.” The entry in the Journal , pages 228-229, states 
“The resolution was lost—ayes, 50; noes, 90.” 

The above action in 1844 also serves to explain why the entry 
of 1856 was made in the words the Secretary employed. It was 
done to satisfy the minority, who thought that two thirds of all 
the members was necessary. 

Presented and adopted, May 26. 22 

Report No. 21 

SUPERNUMERARY WITHOUT CONSENT 

Your Committee on Judiciary recommends for your adoption 
the following: 

The material facts are as follows: By a vote of the Wilmington 
Conference, at its session in 1916, appellant was placed upon the 
list of supernumerary ministers, and as a consequence thereof 
was not given a regular appointment. He complains that he 
cannot be put upon that list without his consent, which was not 
given, and for that reason seeks to have the action of the 
Annual Conference reversed and his name placed upon the 
Effective list. 

By Paragraph 183 of the Discipline it is provided that “A 
Supernumerary Minister is one who, because of impaired health, 
or other equally sufficient reason, is temporarily unable to per¬ 
form full work.” 

And by Paragraph 79, Section 23, it is provided that “The 
business of the Annual Conference is to inquire, ‘Who are the 
Supernumerary Ministers, and for what number of years con¬ 
secutively has each held this relation V” 


22 Journal, 1916, pp. 438, 439, 504-507. 



DECISIONS OF 1916 


209 


Save as stated, the Discipline does not specifically state who 
is to determine whether or not the minister should be placed on 
the list of supernumeraries, but the Annual Conference has 
always exercised the power; and that is the safest place to 
lodge it for the minister’s sake. If appellant’s contentions were 
admitted, then a minister who was too ill mentally and physically 
to request that he be placed on that list could never go there, 
although his case was exactly within the above-quoted definition 
of the Discipline. And probably few would make the request 
unless so old as to be superannuated. Hence appellant’s conten¬ 
tion would almost wholly defeat the purpose of the Discipline 
in providing such a relation. The appeal should be dismissed. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 23 

Report No. 22 

[Search both in the Journal and the Daily Christian Advocate 
for 1916 gives no such report. If there were none, the subsequent 
reports of the session are misnumbered. Yet, for harmony with 
the official publications, the subsequent notation is preserved.] 

Report No. 23 

MARIE AND TRINITY CHURCHES 

Your Committee on Judiciary recommends for your adoption 
the following: 

In the case of Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church, of Chicago, 
Illinois, and the Marie Methodist Episcopal Church, of the 
same city, it appears that the orders of the General Confer¬ 
ence of 1908 and 1912, have never been complied with. Trinity 
Church is therefore in contempt of the authority of the Meth¬ 
odist Episcopal Church, and has been for the past eight years. 
Inasmuch as it has been defiant of that authority the Bishop 
presiding in the Annual Conference within the boundaries of 
which these churches are situated, acting under the orders of 
the General Conference, has left Trinity Church “unsupplied” 
with a pastor; no District Superintendent has assigned any 
preacher to take pastoral charge of that church during the 
period which has elapsed since 1912, nor has any District Super¬ 
intendent held Quarterly Conferences, or made visitations to 
said Church since that date, and that church has been barred 
of its former rights in the Rock River Conference, according 
to the order made by the last General Conference that this 
should be done until these orders should be complied with. 

The attention of your Committee has been called to the fact 
that the Bishop has not dropped Trinity Church from the list 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


ss Journal, 1916, pp. 431, 507. 



210 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


of churches enumerated in the Journal of the Rock River Con¬ 
ference. The Committee, however, believes that the Bishop has 
intended to comply with the order of the General Conference 
as he understood it; and, while he would have been justified if 
he had omitted Trinity Church from the Conference Journal so 
long as it remained contumacious, he should not be censured 
for not having understood that in ordering Trinity Church de¬ 
prived of its rights in the Rock River Conference so long as it 
continued to disobey the orders of the General Conference, that 
church lost under that order the right to have its name listed 
in the Journal as among the churches of the Rock River Con¬ 
ference. 

Trinity Church has now transmitted to the General Confer¬ 
ence a memorial which has been referred to this Committee by 
the action of the General Conference. This document shows a 
desire to have its difficulties adjusted, and to be restored to the 
privileges of which it has been deprived because of its disobedient 
conduct. The Conference might have refused to receive any 
communication from it until it complied with the orders made 
in 1912. But this Committee, while believing that the au¬ 
thority of the Church can never in the end be defied success¬ 
fully by any Methodist Episcopal church, still believes that the 
orders made in 1912 may be modified. Trinity Church in the 
memorial now in our hands states that it earnestly desires that 
“a strong central organization” may be created in the section in 
which it and the Marie Church are established, and that it is 
“ready to cooperate in a wise and equitable plan to launch such 
a movement,” and that the use of its property and resources will 
be available for such a purpose. 

We advise that its overtures be received in the spirit in which 
they have been made. In the interest “of the work, harmony, 
and peace” it asks the Conference to appoint a Committee to 
be approved by the resident Bishop, which Committee shall be 
“authorized to make arrangements for the reorganization of the 
work in said territory with Trinity and other Methodist 
Churches which may desire to cooperate,” and it further requests 
that as soon as an agreement satisfactory to the resident Bishop 
and the majority of said Committee shall have been reached with 
Trinity Church with reference to the above work, the Bishop 
be authorized to restore the former relations which existed be¬ 
tween Trinity Church and the Rock River and General Confer¬ 
ences. 

In view of this communication, and in the “interest of the 
work, harmony, and peace” as advocated by Trinity Church, we 
recommend the General Conference to declare as follows: 

First, that Trinity Church is recognized by it as a Methodist 
Episcopal Church now deprived of its full rights as such until 
such time as those rights may be fully restored by its compliance 


DECISIONS OF 1916 211 

with the orders already made, or such as may be made by the 
action of this Conference. 

We also recommend that this Conference declare: Second, that 
Trinity Church be restored to full rights and privileges in the 
General and in the Rock River Conference if it shall on or be¬ 
fore October 1, 1916, transfer the title to all its property accord¬ 
ing to the laws of the State of Illinois to the Chicago Home 
Missionary and Church Extension Society, a Corporation exist¬ 
ing under the laws of the State of Illinois, and having its princi¬ 
pal office in the City of Chicago in said State, the said property 
to be held in trust for the purposes of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in said city, and subject to the rules and Discipline 
of said Church. And if in addition the said Trinity Church shall 
forever discontinue all actions at law or suits in equity which 
may now be pending in the courts against Marie Church and its 
Trustees and pastor, or against any one of them, growing out of 
claims for rent or for use and occupation, which claims have 
grown out of the differences which have arisen between these 
two Churches; and if in addition the said Trinity Church shall 
release any personal judgments it may have already obtained 
against Marie Chapel or Marie Church, or its pastor or its Trus¬ 
tees growing out of claims arising out of the differences above 
mentioned; and if in addition the Bishop having residential 
episcopal supervision and presiding in the Rock River Confer¬ 
ence has entered in the Journal of that Conference during its 
session in October next his certificate that the above conditions 
have been complied with. 

It is understood that Trinity Church is not required to release 
any judgment it may have obtained establishing the fact that its 
title to any of its property is not held in any way in trust for 
the Marie Church. That in law it does not hold in trust for 
the Marie Church or Chapel has been established by the Supreme 
Court of Illinois. The General Conference of 1912 recognized, 
on the recommendation of the Judiciary Committee, the con¬ 
clusiveness of that decision, and we regard that controversy as 
closed for all time. 

We also recommend: Third, that Marie Church be also 
directed in like manner to release any personal judgments, if 
any there be, which it has obtained against Trinity Church or 
any of its officers, as well as any suits which may now be pend¬ 
ing against the latter church or its officers and which have grown 
out of this unhappy controversy; provided, however, that Trinity 
Church complies with the like conditions above stated. 

We also recommend: Fourth, that in case Trinity Church does 
not transfer its property to the Chicago Home Missionary and 
Church Extension Society on or before October 1, 1916, that 
then and in such case the General Conference, by the adoption 
of this report, instructs the Bishop having residential episco- 


Findin* of 
Committee 


213 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


pal supervision at Chicago to proceed immediately to consoli¬ 
date Trinity Church and Marie Church, and, if it shall seem to 
him desirable, any other Methodist Episcopal church or churches 
in that section of Chicago in which the two first named churches 
are located. He is authorized and directed to give a new name, 
or to retain the present name, to the consolidated church, and 
to appoint its first Board of Trustees, it being understood that 
their successors shall be chosen in the usual manner, and to take 
such other steps as many be necessary to carry out the purposes 
of this Conference as disclosed herein. This power of con¬ 
solidation is given now to the Bishops. See Paragraph 553. 
The power has been exercised from the beginning of our Church 
life. It has been held to be resident in the Bishop presid¬ 
ing in an Annual Conference by virtue of his power to “fix 
the appointments of the preachers.” See the Journal , 1900, 
p. 422. 

It was decided in Trinity Church v. Harris, 73 Conn. (1898), 
that where a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
exercise of his authority consolidated two or more Methodist 
churches the courts of the State would compel the Trustees of 
the Church objecting to and resisting the consolidation to trans¬ 
fer the property of such church to the new Trustees of the 
consolidated church. In that case Bishop Walden had consoli¬ 
dated three Methodist churches in Norwich, Connecticut, on his 
own initiative, and the court of last resort in Connecticut fully 
recognized his right to do so and the duty of the Trustees of 
one of the churches, which resisted and defied his order, to trans¬ 
fer the title to the newly appointed Trustees of the united con¬ 
gregations. 

The authority of the General Conference over all the churches 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church is not to be disregarded and 
set at naught by any of them, and all must conform to the 
rightful exercise thereof. 

Presented and adopted, May 26. 24 


Report No. 24 

RULINGS OF BOARD OF BISHOPS 

Your Committee on Judiciary respectfully reports that the 
Rulings of the Bishops, as submitted to said Committee by the 
Secretary of the Board of Bishops, in pursuance of authority 
so to do conferred on him by the General Conference, are 
hereto appended with our rulings thereon: 

[Sixty-eight Rulings follow, including a supplementary one on 


u Journal, 1916, pp. 436, 508-511. 



DECISIONS OF 1916 


213 


Trustees of Property. These were presented with the comments 
of the Committee on Judiciary appended. 25 ] 

Presented and adopted, May 29. 26 


Report No. 25 

VACANCIES IN DELEGATIONS, ANNUAL AND LAY ELECTORAL 
CONFERENCE 

Your Committee on Judiciary, in response to your resolution 
that it “be requested to inquire into . . . and to report as 
soon as may be practicable as to whether vacancies in delegations 
may be filled by the Annual and Lay Electoral Conferences, 
and to recommend such action as may be required to this end, if 
any is needed,” which resolution was passed because of the fact 
that the representation in this Conference may be greatly 
diminished before the adjourned session thereof, if one be called 
by the Bishops, as heretofore provided, would respectfully re¬ 
port that by Paragraph 39, Section 1, of the Discipline it is pro¬ 
vided that: 

“A Lay Electoral Conference shall be constituted quadren¬ 
nially, whenever duly called by the General Conference, within 
the bounds of each Annual Conference, for the purpose of 
electing lay delegates to the General Conference.” 

That provision clearly gives the right to the General Confer¬ 
ence, by general or special law, to provide for the calling of a 
Lay Electoral Conference at other than the quadrennial periods 
to elect lay delegates to the General Conference. 

Paragraph 38, Section 2, of the Discipline provides that: 

“The ministerial delegates shall be elected by ballot by mem¬ 
bers of the Annual Conference at its session immediately preced¬ 
ing the General Conference.” 

There is no provision in this Paragraph for election of min¬ 
isterial delegates at any other except where an extra session 
is called. See Paragraph 4, Section 3. 

As there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind as to the validity 
of what is done at the adjourned session, should one be called, 
we advise the General Conference that it will be wise to take 
no action looking to the filling of any vacancies in delegations 
by the election of new members pending the life of this General 
Conference. 

Presented and adopted, May 2 7. 27 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


26 For these Rulings, see Part III, pp. 311-328. 
26 Journal, 1916, pp. 462, 511-527. 

"Ibid., pp. 443,527, 528. 


Conference 

action 



214 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Report No. 26 

ORGANIZATION OF ITALIAN MISSION 

The Committee on Judiciary has carefully considered the 
questions concerning the organization of the Italian Mission 
which were referred to it, namely: (1) Whether the Italian 
Mission was legally organized, and (2) whether said organiza¬ 
tion may be continued without the concurrence of the Annual 
Conferences having Italian churches within their bounds. 

This petition does not come from any Annual Conference. 
If there were any body which could enter complaint of violated 
rights, it would be the Annual Conferences within whose bounds 
the work of the Italian Mission is in operation. As there has 
been no such complaint, the question is purely academic. 

The Italian Mission was authorized by the General Confer¬ 
ence of 1908. See Journal, page 514, as follows: “Italian Mis¬ 
sion shall include all the Italian work in the territory included 
between a meridian drawn west of Indianapolis, Indiana, and 
the Atlantic Ocean.” 

It is claimed in the petition that “no enabling act for the 
organization of an Italian Mission had been approved previously 
by the General Conference, and no notice had been given to the 
Annual Conferences affected by the organization of said Mis¬ 
sion of the proposed change in their respective territory.” 

So far as the Journal of 1908 shows, there was no “enabling 
act” for this purpose passed that year. It was not necessary that 
such an act should be passed. An enabling act is necessary only 
when the proposed changes cannot be consummated at the ses¬ 
sion of the General Conference. In this case the approval of 
the Bishops and the authorization of the General Conference 
completed the steps necessary to forming the Italian Mission. 

An examination of Paragraph 484 shows that it provides for 
“change of boundaries of Annual Conferences or Mission Con¬ 
ferences or the division or absorption of Annual Conferences or 
Mission Conferences out of the territory already occupied by 
organized Conferences.” Neither in this Paragraph nor else¬ 
where in the Discipline is there any direction concerning the 
organization of a Mission, but, rather, the method of procedure 
when Annual Conferences or Mission Conferences or Missions 
already formed are to be united or divided or absorbed. 

The power to organize a Mission rests with the Bishops, on 
the authorization of the General Conference acting through its 
Committee on Boundaries. By the same body a Mission may 
be dissolved. If it is later to be organized into a Mission Con¬ 
ference or united with another Conference, it must be by the 
process indicated in Paragraph 484. 

For matters of administration the relation of a Mission to an 
Annual Conference is the same as that of a District Conference. 


DECISIONS OF 1016 


215 


The members of the Italian Mission hold their membership in 
the respective Annual Conferences in which their churches are 
located, so that the boundaries of these Conferences are not 
changed. 

Answering categorically the questions submitted: (1) The 
Italian Mission was legally organized; (2) said organization may 
be continued without the concurrence of the Annual Confer¬ 
ences having Italian churches within their bounds. 

Presented and adopted, May 27. 28 

Report No. 27 

ANNUITY CLAIMS 

The amendment submitted to your Committee 29 proposes to 
substitute for the word “membership,” at the end of the second 
sentence, the words, “the ratio of the total annuity claims of 
the several Annual Conferences to the total annuity claims of 
the entire Church, as shown in the report made by the Confer¬ 
ence Stewards to the Board of Conference Claimants, such report 
to be carefully checked by the Corresponding Secretary and 
properly certified by the Book Committee, which shall have 
charge of the distribution,” so that the Paragraph, as amended, 
shall read: “Paragraph 383. The produce of The Book Concern, 
after the Book Committee has determined and retained a suffi¬ 
cient amount with which to carry on its affairs, shall be regu¬ 
larly applied to the benefit of the traveling, supernumerary, and 
retired preachers, their wives, widows, and children. The 
division of the produce of The Book Concern available for dis¬ 
tribution according to this Paragraph shall be made equitably 
to the Annual Conference upon the basis of the ratio of the 
total annuity claims of the several Annual Conferences to the 
total annuity claims of the entire Church, as shown in the 
report made by the Conference Stewards to the Board of Con¬ 
ference Claimants, such report to be carefully checked by the 
Corresponding Secretary and properly certified to the Book 
Committee, which shall have charge of the distribution.” 

Does this amendment conflict with any of the Restrictive 
Rules? The Sixth Restrictive Rule reads as follows: “The 
General Conference shall not appropriate the produce of The 
Book Concern nor of the Chartered Fund to any purpose other 
than for the benefit of the traveling, supernumerary, and 
superannuated preachers, their wives, widows, and children.” 
This rule does not prescribe the manner in which the funds 

28 Journal, 1916, pp. 528, 529. For adoption, see Daily Christian Advo¬ 
cate, May 30, 1916, p. 533. 

29 Report 12, Committee on Itinerancy, referred to Committee on 
Judiciary as to constitutionality of amendment to Paragraph 383 (Journal, 
pp. 434, 537). 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 



316 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


therein described shall be distributed. The distribution of the 
funds is left to be provided for by the General Conference. The 
rule places no restrictions on the powers of the General Confer¬ 
ence, so far as the distribution of the fund is concerned between 
the classes of the persons named in the rule. 

The amendment proposed does not divert any of these funds 
from the classes of persons named in the Sixth Restrictive Rule. 
It does provide the basis on which to calculate the annuity 
claims of the several Annual Conferences. This is within the 
powers left to the General Conference by the Sixth Restrictive 
Rule. The proposed amendment is not in violation of this 
rule, and there is no other constitutional provision prohibiting 
the General Conference from prescribing the rule set out in the 
amendment. It follows that the amendment is constitutional. 

It is suggested that the amendment will be inconsistent with 
Section 1 of Paragraph 332, which reads as follows: “Paragraph 
332. Moneys designated for annuity distribution shall be dis¬ 
tributed on the basis of service, and shall consist of: 

“Section 1. The dividends of The Book Concern and the 
Chartered Fund.” This is taken out of that part of the Disci¬ 
pline giving to the Annual Conference the power to distribute 
to its Conference Claimants the funds of the Annual Confer¬ 
ence as available for their benefit. The amendment governs the 
distribution of funds to the Annual Conferences. Paragraph 
332 concerns the distribution of these funds with other funds 
by the Annual Conference to the Conference Claimants. The 
amendment is not inconsistent with the powers of the Annual 
Conference. 

Presented and adopted, May 27. 30 

Report No. 28 

APPEAL FROM RULING OF BISHOP HENDERSON 

On the matter of the appeal of J. J. Manker, of the Hol- 
ston Conference, from a ruling made by Bishop Henderson, 
while presiding over the said Conference, the facts appear to 
be as stated below: 

A Committee was appointed to investigate rumors which were 
in circulation respecting the character of C. C. Morris, a mem¬ 
ber of the Conference. A question was raised as to whether C. 
C. Morris had the right of challenge in such case, and the 
Bishop ruled that he had. And this appeal was taken there¬ 
from. 

It is undoubtedly true that a person under investigation is 
expressly given a right of challenge under Paragraph 303, Sec¬ 
tion 3, of the Discipline, which provides that “in all cases of 
investigation or trial both parties shall have the right to chal- 

80 Journal , 1916, pp. 443, 529-531. 



DECISIONS OF 1916 


217 


lenge for cause.” The question now raised is, however, whether 
this Paragraph 303 applies to this “Committee of Inquiry,” 
which in this case was composed of five members. When the 
Committee of Inquiry made its report, it stated that “your Com¬ 
mittee appointed to investigate the rumors” had done so, and 
that it had made diligent and thorough inquiry into the rumors, 
and reported that there were rumors of imprudent and un- 
ministerial conduct of sufficient prevalence and persistency to 
justify, in all fairness to Brother Morris and the Church, the 
bringing of a complaint. The Conference received the report 
and appointed a Committee to formulate charges. The charges 
were formulated, and a Committee of Investigation was ap¬ 
pointed. It was at this stage of the investigation that the right 
of challenge came into existence, and not before. The appeal 
should be dismissed. 

There are other matters complained of as to the subsequent 
rulings by the Bishop in connection with the trial. As to such 
matters the Bishop had no notice, as required under our law, 
and they cannot therefore now be considered. 

Presented and adopted, May 27. 31 

Report No. 29 

REPRESENTATION OF JAPAN MISSION IN GENERAL CONFERENCE 

Your Committee on Judiciary, having had referred to it for 
its opinion the constitutionality of the recommendation as set 
forth in Report No. 29 of the Committee on Temporal Economy 
( Advocate, May 26, 1916), as follows: 

“Resolved, That the Mission Council of the Methodist Epis¬ 
copal Church in Japan be authorized to elect and send one of 
its members to the General Conference of the Methodist Episco¬ 
pal Church as its representative—said representative to be ac¬ 
corded the privilege of sitting with the Committees of the Gen¬ 
eral Conference, with the right to speak when questions relating 
to our work in Japan are being discussed”; 

We respectfully report that there is nothing in the Discipline 
forbidding such action, and that the matter is entirely in the 
hands of the General Conference for such action as it may deem 
wise and expedient. 

Presented and adopted, May 29. 32 

Report A 

BISHOPS MOVING MINISTERS AFTER SIX YEARS 

B. H. Hart, of the Central Pennsylvania Conference, sent 

81 Journal , 1916, pp. 443, 531 

82 Ibid., pp. 462, 531, 532. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 



218 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


up to the General Conference a statement of the acts of two 
Bishops, of which the following is a summary: 

The Bishop presiding over the Central Pennsylvania Confer¬ 
ence at its regular session in March, 1914, in the closing hours 
of its session spoke of the increasing unwillingness of the min¬ 
isters to move, and announced that at the next session of the 
Conference he would move all the ministers who had served six 
or more years in their present charges. At the next session of 
the Conference another Bishop presided, who did actually move 
with one exception all the ministers who had so served six or 
more years, such action being taken, as understood by the pro¬ 
ponent, by the advice and at the direction of the Bishop resident 
in the area. 

On this statement of the facts said to have occurred, the 
said B. H. Hart submitted these questions, which were referred 
to the Committee on Judiciary for consideration: 

1. “Since the General Conference has removed the time limit, 
has any Bishop the legal right to establish one, as was certainly 
done in the above instance?” 

To this we return the following answer: The law of the 
Church gives to the Bishop the power to appoint the preachers 
to the charges. This power is legally unrestricted, and is guided 
only by the exercise of the Bishop’s godly judgment as to what 
will, in the case of any appointment or appointments, best con¬ 
serve the interests of the churches and the pastors. Your Com¬ 
mittee is now considering only the legal phases of the question, 
and refrains from intimating any judgment on the merits of 
the controversy out of which this petition arose. It is true 
that the General Conference has removed the time limit from 
the rule of pastoral appointment, and it is the opinion of your 
Committee that the acts or proposed act of the Bishop or Bishops, 
as set forth in the statement of B. H. Hart, does not constitute 
the imposing of a time limit, and was therefore legal. 

2. “Has a Bishop, with residential supervision, the right to 
give to a presidential Bishop the names of those who are to be 
moved, apart from all the facts the presiding Bishop ascertains 
during his presiding at Conference, so that the presidential 
Bishop is expected to act, and does act, in the respective cases 
solely on the program given him by the residential Bishop ?” 

To this question the following answer is returned: The right 
questioned in this inquiry does exist. It is inherent in the ap¬ 
pointive power residing in the episcopacy. Any plan or agree¬ 
ment as to the appointments entered into by the resident Bishop 
and the president Bishop of an Annual Conference is a matter 
officially private to themselves, and its legality is not a matter 
of doubt. 

Your Committee is therefore of the opinion that, on the facts 
as set forth in this statement of B. H. Hart, the two Bishops 


DECISIONS OF 1916 


219 


mentioned in the said statement were acting clearly within 
their legal official rights. 

Presented and adopted. May 27. 33 

Report B 

RIGHT OF ANNUAL CONFERENCES TO FIX DISTRICTS 

Your Committee on Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
memorial of the Port Huron and Copper Country Preachers’ 
Meetings of the Detroit Annual Conference, that the Annual 
Conferences be authorized to determine the number and bound¬ 
aries of the Districts, with the request that this Committee re¬ 
port on the constitutionality of this proposition, reports as fol¬ 
lows: 

The Third Restrictive Rule forbids the General Conference 
to destroy the plan of our itinerant General Superintendency. 
The authority to “fix the appointments” has always been in¬ 
terpreted as a part of the plan of our itinerant General Super¬ 
intendency, and this includes the power to arrange the pastoral 
charges and the larger groups called Districts. The Annual Con¬ 
ference has not the power under the Constitution to decide the 
number and the boundaries of the Districts, nor has it the power 
to confer such authority by statute. 

Presented and adopted, May 27. 34 

In the review of the twenty-nine reports adopted at this 
session of the General Conference it will be discovered that 
certain most important questions had their consideration. 
The conclusion reached in Report No. 8 was that the Annual 
Conference may refuse to entertain charges against a mem¬ 
ber. Report No. 16 revived a subject proposed by the Bishops 
themselves as far back as 1848, and since appearing at 
intervals, as to the possibility of establishing a “Court of 
Appeals.” Report No. 18 provided for an adjourned session 
of the General Conference, as then seemed not a remote 
possibility; and Report No. 20 defined the “two-thirds’ vote” 
necessary in the General Conference on constitutional ques¬ 
tions. As a whole, such decisions invite the particular atten¬ 
tion of the student of Methodist legislation, and will be 
quoted as precedents in future years. 


33 Journal , 1916, pp. 448, 532, 533. 
“Ibid., pp. 448, 533. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 



XVI 


Organization 


DECISIONS OF 1920 

T HE organization of the Committee on Judiciary, at 
the General Conference held in Des Moines, Iowa, 
was again based upon Rule 36, of the Rules of Order. 
This direction was: 

The delegates of each General Conference District shall nomi¬ 
nate from their number one member, and the Bishops shall 
nominate four, making the total number nineteen. 1 

Members of the Committee.—As later designated by the 
General Conference Districts and the Board of Bishops, the 
following constituted the Committee on Judiciary for 1920: 

J. I. Bartholomew, New England Southern. 

Henry Wade Rogers, New York East. 

William Nottingham, Central New York. 

H. C. Conrad, Wilmington. 

J. M. Killits, West Ohio. 

S. C. Brown, Holston. 

F. B. Smith, Louisiana. 

John Marshall, Kansas. 

E. A. Morling, Northwest Iowa. 

H. R. Snavely, Illinois. 

E. R. Conder, Indiana. 

C. A. Pollock, North Dakota. 

0. A. Knehans, Saint Louis German. 

L. L. Dennett, California. 

F. G. B. Kemp, Columbia River. 

Additional Members 
E. J. Lockwood, Upper Iowa. 

C. W. Lynch, West Virginia. 

G. W. White, California. 

J. C. Nate, Illinois. 2 

Organization—The Committee effected its organization 
by the election of Henry Wade Rogers, of the New York 

1 Journal, 1920, p. 139. 

* Ibid., pp. 79, 288. (On request from the Fifth General Conference 
District, during the absence of J. M. Killits his place on the Committee 
was ordered filled by F. M. Clevenger.— Journal, 1920, pp. 299, 300. 

220 


I. 

II. 

III. 

IV. 
V. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 

X. 

XI. 

XII. 

XIII. 

XIV. 
XV. 



DECISIONS OF 1920 


221 


East Conference, as Chairman, and O. A. Knehans, of the 
Saint Louis German Conference, as Secretary. 

Defective Appeals. —Two appeals which were defective 
but designed for the Committee were ordered, on the eighth 
day of the session, to be returned to the senders for completion 
in form. 3 

Reports of the Committee. —The following twenty reports 
were presented by the Committee, at intervals during the 
session, and such disposition was made of them as is indi¬ 
cated in connection with the separate reports: 

Report No. 1 

MEMORIAL OF DAKOTA CONFERENCE FOR NEW TRIAL DENIED 

Your Judiciary Committee having carefully considered all 
the documents referred to it relating to the memorial of the 
Dakota Conference concerning the case of F. P. Blakemore 
vs. the Nebraska Conference, respectfully recommends for your 
adoption the following: 

The Committee has had referred to it a memorial from 
the Dakota Annual Conference concerning the case of F. P. 
Blakemore vs. the Nebraska Conference. It asks the General 
Conference to reopen the case “on the record and receive any 
new evidence and memorials from any source looking to his 
[Blakemore’s] complete vindication.” The Dakota Confer¬ 
ence designated Rev. J. S. Hoagland and J. S. Harkness “to 
study the record and make up findings which in their godly 
judgment might aid the Judiciary Committee in the delibera¬ 
tion and decisions.” The memorial is accompanied by what 
we suppose is intended to be “a short study of the record” and 
the “findings” which the parties designated were instructed to 
make, and which is attested by their signatures. 

It appears that a complaint was filed in the Nebraska Con¬ 
ference against the Rev. F. P. Blakemore on September 20, 
1905. It charged him with “immoral, unchristian, and unmin- 
isterial conduct.” There were six distinct charges against him 
and several distinct specifications under each charge. The mis¬ 
conduct complained of occurred in 1902, 1903, and 1904. He was 
tried and acquitted on certain of the charges and convicted on 
others and removed from his ministerial office. The memorial is 
based on the theory that the evidence did not justify the convic¬ 
tion, that there was no substantial proof of guilt, and that a grave 
injustice was committed. It is represented that “while Mr. 
Blakemore may have been guilty of certain indiscretions de¬ 
serving of censure, yet we do not believe him to have been de- 


Qucstion 

referred 


3 Journal, 1920, p. 300. 



222 EEPOETS OF THE JUDICIAEY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


serving of the severe punishment that has been inflicted upon 
him.” It is added “that in view of these facts, and the long 
period of time that has now elapsed since the alleged indiscre¬ 
tions occurred, and the upright life that Brother Blakemore 
has lived since that time and his sincere devotion to the Meth¬ 
odist Episcopal Church and his earnest desire to be reinstated in 
his ministerial office, the undersigned, on behalf of the Dakota 
Conference . . . respectfully petition that Brother Blake- 

more’s case be reopened by this [the Judiciary] Committee and 
that the same be reviewed upon the record of the former trial 
and such other new and additional evidence as either side may 
present, and that final judgment may be entered exonerating 
Brother Blakemore from such charges and reinstating him as 
a minister of the Church, or in lieu thereof such other action be 
taken by this body as shall give Brother Blakemore a rehearing 
in said matter before a fair and impartial court or Committee.” 

It is to be said before passing to the consideration of this 
memorial that after Blakemore’s conviction by the Nebraska 
Conference, over which at the time Bishop John W. Hamilton 
presided, the case was appealed to the Judicial Conference 
over which Bishop McDowell presided, and a similar result was 
reached. The case was then appealed to the General Con¬ 
ference of 1908, which dismissed the appeal. (See Journal 
1908, pages 437, 480.) We regard the action there taken as a 
final disposition of the case. 

The application now made to the present General Conference 
is, in the form in which it comes, without precedents so far as 
we are aware in the history of our judicial proceedings. We are 
unable to determine whether the intention of the memorial is 
that we should reopen the case and send it back to the Nebraska 
Conference for a new trial, or whether the Judiciary Committee 
should practically review the case upon the record and such new 
evidence as may be presented and determine the guilt or inno¬ 
cence of Blakemore. But it is immaterial which of these two 
intentions actuated the Dakota Conference in the action it 
has taken. In either case the prayer of the memorial should 
not be granted. 

1. It is a rule of the civil courts that a new trial will not be 
granted nor a judgment vacated on the application of a third 
person who is not a party or privy to the action, unless it 
appears that the moving party is the real party in interest. 
Here the application for a new trial is not made by Blakemore, 
the party tried and convicted, but by the Dakota Conference 
whose rights are in no way involved. 

2. As a rule in the civil courts, and in the absence of a 
statute providing otherwise, applications for a new trial or to 
vacate a judgment cannot be granted after the expiration of 
the term during which the trial was had and the judgment 


DECISIONS OF 1920 


223 


was rendered. This General Conference has the power to grant 
a new trial in this case notwithstanding the lapse of time since 
the judgment was entered. It would, however, be extremely 
unwise to exercise the power which it is conceded to possess. 
If the civil courts ordinarily exercise such power only at the 
term at which the judgment is entered, the circumstances would 
have to be more unusual and extraordinary than any we can find 
in this case to justify a General Conference in granting a new 
trial fifteen years after the conviction took place, and twelve 
years after the case was finally disposed of by the action of 
a General Conference to which it was appealed. 

3. The application now made is not based on any alleged 
wrongful admission or exclusion of evidence, or upon any im¬ 
proper rulings of law at the trial, neither is it alleged that 
any of the triers were disqualified or improper. 

4. The record of the trial is not here, and we are there¬ 
fore without the means of ascertaining what the weight of the 
testimony showed as to the innocence or guilt of the accused. 
We cannot judge of the matter from what is contained in an 
ex parte statement presented by one side as to what the testi¬ 
mony showed or did not show. If we possess the right to pass 
on the weight of the testimony, we should have been presented 
with the record that we might examine it for ourselves. We 
may add that those who saw and observed the witnesses when 
they gave their testimony are much better qualified to pass upon 
its weight than those possibly can be who have had no such oppor¬ 
tunity of observation. 

5. It is said that there is new evidence which can be pre¬ 
sented. The courts sometimes grant new trials, not because 
there is new evidence which can be introduced, but because 
there is newly discovered evidence, evidence which was unknown 
to the defeated party at the time of his trial and which he 
could not have discovered at that time by the exercise of rea¬ 
sonable diligence. And this newly discovered evidence should 
appear to be of such a character as would have a decisive influ¬ 
ence and be likely to change the result of the former trial. The 
civil courts usually require that affidavits of newly discovered 
witnesses as to the facts to which they will testify should be 
presented and the affidavits should set out fully and particularly 
the facts to which the witnesses will testify. We are not fur¬ 
nished with any satisfactory statement as to exactly what new 
testimony can be produced, or whether the witnesses will be 
present and give testimony, and why they were not produced at 
the former trial, and how they came to be discovered at this 
late day. It is alleged that Blakemore has in his possession 
certain affidavits containing new evidence, but neither the 
affidavits nor copies of them are furnished to this Committee. 
It is also said that Blakemore has certain letters in his posses- 


Finding of 
Committee 


224 REPOETS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


sion that state certain facts, but no reason is given why the 
writers of the letters were not called upon to testify at the 
first trial. It is also said that one hundred and thirteen persons 
have signed a paper stating their disbelief in the charges, but 
surely such a petition is not proper evidence. 

6. The exemplary life which one who has been convicted of an 
offense leads after his conviction may be a reason for a pardon. 
It is not a ground for a new trial. 

7. It is said the conviction was void because prior to trial 
there was a failure to comply with Paragraph 595, Section 3, 
which requires that in cases of imprudent and unchristian con¬ 
duct “preliminary labor” is required before the accused person 
is liable to be arraigned and tried, and which declares that it 
should be averred in the complaint that such “preliminary labor” 
has been performed. But the complaint charges immoral con¬ 
duct as well as imprudent conduct, and in a complaint which 
alleges immoral conduct “preliminary labor” is not required. 
Moreover, we think this requirement is one which may be waived 
if the accused does not insist upon the objection when he is put 
upon his trial, and it does not appear that any such objection 
was made at that time or that he is raising it now. The order 
granting a new trial at common law vacates the verdict and 
the proceedings based upon it, and in this case it means a new 
inquiry into matters which happened eighteen years ago. In 
our opinion this ought not to be done. The prayer of the 
memorial should be denied. 

Presented and adopted, May 18. 4 

Eepobt No. 2 

WITHHOLDING CERTIFICATE OF MEMBERSHIP 

Your Judiciary Committee, having carefully considered all 
the documents referred to it relating to the request of Eev. 
Frank D. Sheets for a ruling upon Paragraph 56 as to the 
right of a minister to withhold a certificate of membership from 
one who desires to transfer to another charge, respectfully 
recommends for your adoption the following: 

There was referred to the Committee on Judiciary the fol¬ 
lowing : 

“Eev. Frank D. Sheets, of the Eock Eiver Conference, asks a 
ruling upon Paragraph 56—as to the right of a minister to 
withhold a certificate of membership from one who desires to 
transfer to another charge, there being no ‘charges’ filed—has 
the minister any discretion in the matter ?” 

Paragraph 56 of the Discipline of 1916 in part reads: “A 
certificate of membership shall not be refused, if demanded by a 

4 Journal, 1920, pp. 331, 355, 464-467. 



DECISIONS OF 1920 


225 


member removing his residence to another charge, except for 
reasons that justify judicial proceeding against such member.” 

Two other parts of the Discipline should be examined with 
the part now under consideration. They are Section 5 of Para¬ 
graph 46 and Paragraph 280. The former provides that the 
General Conference shall not deprive our members of the right 
of trial by a Committee of members of our Church, and Para¬ 
graph 280 provides that for imprudent conduct, etc., “on the 
first offense let private reproof be given”; that “on the second 
offense the pastor or class leader may take with him one or 
two discreet members of the church”; and that “on the third 
offense let him be brought to trial, and if found guilty and 
there be no sign of real humiliation, he shall be expelled.” 

From these provisions of the Discipline it follows that the 
minister does not have arbitrary power over the members of 
the Church. They have rights in the Church and he must 
respect them. Among these is the right to a trial before it 
can be determined that a member has been guilty of conduct 
that will justify a minister in withholding a certificate when 
it is applied for. If a member demands a certificate to transfer 
him to another charge, and the minister thinks that, on account 
of the misconduct of the member, the certificate should not be 
given, the minister should at once see that Paragraph 280 of 
the Discipline is complied with. Such proceedings should be 
prosecuted diligently, and the issuance of the certificate may 
await the result thereof and be issued or withheld in accordance 
with the result of the proceedings. If such proceedings are 
not promptly commenced, the certificate should issue. 

Presented and adopted, May 18. 5 

Report No. 3 

APPROPRIATION OF CONFERENCE CLAIMANTS* FUNDS FOR OUTSIDE 
SERVICE 

The Committee on Judiciary is asked to rule on the legal 
right of a Conference Board of Stewards to appropriate Confer¬ 
ence Claimant Funds for years of service outside of the Meth¬ 
odist Episcopal Church in organizations uncontrolled by the 
Methodist Episcopal Church and noncontributors to its annui¬ 
tant fund, and to determine whether the annuitant provision 
of the Discipline is applicable in such cases. 

The reference is to some of the Conference members who 
have done work in what is known as detached service. 

By Paragraph 208, Section 3, the Bishop is authorized to 
make appointments of eight classes of workers to other than 
the pastorates and District Superintendencies. Three of these 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


5 Journal , 1920, pp. 355, 467, 468. 



226 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


classes refer to organizations not controlled by our Church nor 
contributors to its annuitant fund, as follows: 

Subsection (4). Chaplains in the Army and Navy and to 
Prisons, Reformatories, Sanatoriums, and other Charitable In¬ 
stitutions. 

Subsection (5). Preachers for Seamen. 

Subsection (6). Ministers in the service of the American 
Bible Society or of any State Bible Society auxiliary thereto or 
of the Sunday League of America. 

Under Section 4 of the same Paragraph the Bishop, if re¬ 
quested by an Annual Conference, may appoint eight other 
classes of workers; three of these classes, also, may come within 
the scope of this inquiry, as follows: 

Subsection (2). An Agent or Agents to promote the cause 
of Temperance. 

Subsection (6). Agents for other Benevolent Institutions. 

Subsection (3). Instructors in Institutions of Learning not 
under our care. 

The questions are: First. Has the Conference Board of 
Stewards the legal right to make any appropriation of funds 
at its disposal to retired members of the Conference who gave 
years of their active service to those interests outside the Meth¬ 
odist Episcopal Church; and, 

Second. Are the years so spent to be counted in determining 
the years of service of these Conference Claimants? 

Paragraph 339, Sections 2 and 4, make it clear that either 
the Annual Conference or the Conference Board of Stewards by 
authorization of the Annual Conference may appropriate Confer¬ 
ence Claimants’ Funds. 

By Paragraph 333, Section 1, a member of Conference is 
entitled to support as long as his membership continues. This 
is the language: “The claim to a comfortable support inheres 
in the gospel ministry and rightfully inures to the benefit of the 
preacher in the Methodist Episcopal Church, when he is 
admitted to membership in an Annual Conference. Such claim 
is not invalidated by his being retired, and at his death passes 
to the dependent members of his family.” 

By our law this support, if provided at all, must come from 
the Conference Claimant Funds. 

Paragraph 341, Section 1, declares what the claim of any re¬ 
tired minister shall be. No exceptions are made. The re¬ 
tired ministers who have spent time in what is termed detached 
work, even if this work is entirely outside the Methodist Epis¬ 
copal Church, are entitled under the law to an annuity claim. 

The second question is, Are the annuitant provisions of the 
Discipline applicable in these cases ? 

The same Paragraph, 341, Section 1, declares that “The 
annuity claim of any retired minister shall not be less than 


DECISIONS OF 1920 


227 

one seventieth (1/70) of the average salary (house rent ex-' 
eluded) of the effective members of the Conference who are 
pastors or District Superintendents, multiplied by the number 
of years of his effective service, including two years on trial.” 

The only question involved is this: Do the years of effective 
service include the years given to work for organizations not 
controlled by the Methodist Episcopal Church? 

We reply that they do, for two reasons: First, the division 
of the members of the Conference into Effective, Supernumer¬ 
ary, and Retired members determines the meaning of those 
terms and will not be questioned by those familiar with the 
terminology of our Conferences. 

The years of his effective service include all the years of his 
Conference membership except those which have been spent in the 
Supernumerary or Retired relation. 

Second: Paragraph 208 already quoted shows that during 
these years of service these men were doing work authorized 
by the law of the Church and under direct appointment of the 
Bishop. 

We find that as the law of the Church now stands a retired 
man who has given years of service under appointment by the 
Bishop as an effective member of an Annual Conference to 
organizations not under our control has the same claim upon 
the Conference Claimants* Fund as though he had given these 
years to the regular work of the ministry, and that the Confer¬ 
ence Board of Stewards may legally use the funds at its disposal 
to meet such claims. 

Presented and adopted, May 18. 6 

Report No. 4 

“member in good standing" 

The Committee on Judiciary submits the following report: 

There has been referred to us the question as to the mean¬ 
ing of the words “in good standing** as found in Paragraph 59, 
Section 1, of the Discipline. That Paragraph reads that “When 
any member in good standing proposes to withdraw from the 
Methodist Episcopal Church he shall communicate his purpose 
in writing to the pastor of the church. Upon receiving such 
notice of withdrawal, the pastor shall enter the fact of with¬ 
drawal upon the record of the church membership; and such 
withdrawal cannot be retracted except by consent of the pastor 
and the Quarterly Conference.** 

In our opinion the words “member in good standing** in this 
connection mean that the party has been admitted into full mem¬ 
bership and that there are no charges or formulated complaints 
pending at the time against such member for which he could 

6 Journal, 1920, pp. 355, 468-470. 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 



Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


228 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

be placed on trial, and that none to the knowledge of the pastor 
are about to be preferred against him. 

We think that the words “in good standing” and the words 
“in good and regular standing” are equivalent expressions. 

Membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church is of two 
kinds: 

1. Preparatory membership. 

2. Full membership. 

Persons can be received into preparatory membership on 
mere profession of faith (Paragraph 48, Section 2). But in 
order to be received into full membership it is necessary that 
it should be upon recommendation of the Official Board or 
the Board of Stewards and the approval of the pastor (Para¬ 
graph 48, Section 3). The rights of one who holds a prepara¬ 
tory membership are less than those which pertain to full 
membership (Paragraph 48, Section 2). One who has been 
received into full membership, as provided in Section 3 of 
Paragraph 48, is a “member in good standing” "within the mean¬ 
ing of Paragraph 59, Section 1, of the Discipline . 

Presented and adopted, May 18. 7 

Report No. 5 

EIGHTS OF DELEGATES FROM MERGED CONFERENCES 

The Committee on Judiciary submits the following report: 

There has been referred to us the question as to the effect 
of a merger of one Annual Conference into another Annual 
Conference, if such merger should be ordered by this General 
Conference, upon the right of delegates representing the Annual 
Conference so merged to retain their membership in this Gen¬ 
eral Conference until its final adjournment. 

There being no provision in the Constitution of the Church 
and no pronouncement of the General Conference on the sub¬ 
ject, the time when legislation becomes effective would de¬ 
pend upon the common law rule. The courts in this country 
hold that, in the absence of a constitutional or statutory provi¬ 
sion to the contrary, legislation takes effect from the date of 
its passage. 

It appears, however, that the law of our Church differs from 
that which prevails in the civil courts respecting the question 
now under consideration. In 1910 the Bishops decided (Rule 
No. 389) that judicial decisions of the General Conference be¬ 
come operative at the close of the General Conference which 
takes such action, even though such decisions be not printed in 
the Discipline. And that ruling was confirmed by the General 
Conference of 1912. In 1884 the exact question was before 


7 Journal, 1920, pp. 355, 470, 471. 



DECISIONS OF 1920 


229 


the Bishops as to when changes in boundaries go into effect. 
The Bishops then ruled (Rule 161) : 

1. “If nothing to the contrary appears in the action of the 
General Conference, any changes made in Conference bound¬ 
aries take effect immediately on the adjournment of the Gen¬ 
eral Conference. 

2. “If the General Conference orders that the change take 
effect at the next session, or that the change be postponed till 
the next session, not specifying either one of the two Confer¬ 
ences concerned, then the transfer of the territory ordered by 
the General Conference, together with that of all the preachers 
appointed to labor therein, is to take effect at the opening of 
that one of the Conferences which first meets.” 

In 1880 the General Conference, on the recommendation of 
the Committee on Episcopacy, requested and directed the Bishops 
to report at each General Conference session all formal deci¬ 
sions of law points made by them in their official administra¬ 
tion, for review by the General Conference ( Journal , Yol. 9, 
page 364). And since that time the Bishops have submitted 
their rulings to the Judiciary Committee for approval and 
report. We do not find that Rule 161 has ever been disapproved. 
Under the circumstance we accept it, therefore, as established 
that in the absence of any provision to the contrary the legisla¬ 
tion of the General Conference takes effect immediately on its 
adjournment. 

In view of the foregoing considerations we hold that, if this 
General Conference directs the merger or consolidation of one 
Annual Conference with another, such legislation becomes effec¬ 
tive upon the adjournment of the Conference and not before 
unless it be otherwise expressly provided, and that the dele¬ 
gates now seated from any Conference so consolidated or merged 
would be entitled to retain all the rights and privileges they 
now possess as delegates in this General Conference until final 
adjournment of the body. 

Presented and adopted, May 18. * 8 

Report No. 6 

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DOCTRINAL QUESTION IN RITUAL 

[The majority and minority reports on this subject were not 
adopted, and will be found elsewhere. 9 ] 

Report No. 7 

COMPLAINT AS TO PREVIOUS MISSOURI CONFERENCE RECORDS 

The complaint of Louise and Mary C. Cavett, which is in 

8 Journal, 1920, pp. 355, 471, 472. 

8 See Part II, pp. 271-282. 


Conference 

Action 


Question 

referred 



230 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


the form of a letter to the acting Secretary of the General 
Conference, appears to relate to some action or record of the 
Missouri Conference dating back to 1882, 1885, and 1886 con¬ 
cerning the father of the complainants, Rev. John Cavett, who 
was at one time a member of the Central Illinois and later of 
the Missouri Conference; and states that the records of the 
latter and the files of the church publications are slanderous 
as touching said John Cavett. We are not advised of the 
contents of the record or the nature of the slander, as neither 
is specified in the complaint or other papers submitted; but 
from a statement contained in what purports to be a copy of a 
letter we would infer that the records of the Missouri Confer¬ 
ence contained a statement that said Cavett withdrew from 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, but the reasons for such with¬ 
drawal are not given and no facts are set forth which can 
form a basis for any affirmative action on the part of this 
Committee or the General Conference, and we so report ac¬ 
cordingly. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 10 

Report No. 8 

COMPENSATION FOR LOSS SUSTAINED AS CONFERENCE CLAIMANT 

The opinion of the Judiciary Committee is requested as to 
the legality under the Discipline of the following resolution 
sought to be introduced at the Vermont Annual Conference of 
April, 1919: 

“Whereas, The Conference at its last session changed the 
relation of M. H. Smith from Retired to Supernumerary with¬ 
out his consent or knowledge, thereby depriving him of his 
legal claim upon the funds of the Conference; therefore, 

“Resolved, That the Secretary and Treasurer of the Board of 
Stewards is herewith instructed to express to Brother Smith 
the regrets of the Conference for the action taken, and to reim¬ 
burse him for the loss sustained.” 

The resolution was ruled out by the Bishop presiding at 
the Annual Conference as inadmissible under the Discipline. 

The facts relating to the question involved, as they appear 
from the papers presented, are as follows: 

According to the official Journal of the Vermont Confer¬ 
ence Rev. M. H. Smith was in 1917 a Retired Minister. He 
did not relinquish his claim as such upon the Conference fund, 
but that year made an application in the usual manner for an 
allowance therefrom. The Conference Stewards did not recom¬ 
mend that his claim be disallowed; however, it does not appear 
to have been paid to him. 

The said official Journal also shows that in 1918 his relation 


10 Journal, 1920, pp. 410, 481, 482. 



DECISIONS OP 1920 


231 


was changed to Supernumerary. The Conference Retrospect 
for 1918 does not show his changed relation, but does disclose 
the fact of his having been Effective for fourteen years, Super¬ 
numerary for five years, and Retired for three years. 

It further appears that Mr. Smith did not ask to have his 
relation changed from Retired to Supernumerary, and did not 
even know that such change was to be made. He had no 
opportunity to be heard upon the subject; neither was his case 
referred to the Committee on Conference Relations. We infer 
that he did not attend the Conference of 1918, where the change 
of relation was made. 

The action of the Annual Conference of 1918 in returning Finding of 
him to the Supernumerary relation automatically removed him Committee 
from the list of Conference Claimants who had a legal claim 
upon the funds devoted to the support of Retired Ministers 
and placed him in the class of Supernumeraries, whose right 
to share in these funds rested in the discretion of the Annual 
Conference. The nature of his claim upon the fund was thus 
changed and its value impaired, without his consent or knowl¬ 
edge, and without having had an opportunity to be heard. 

This action of the Annual Conference does not seem to be in 
accord with the provisions of the Discipline, which are stringent 
for the protection of the interests of Conference Claimants. 

Paragraph 333 relating to the matter reads as follows: 

“§ 1. The claim to a comfortable support inheres in the 
Gospel Ministry, and rightfully inures to the benefit of the 
Preacher in the Methodist Episcopal Church when he is ad¬ 
mitted to membership in an Annual Conference. Such claim 
is not invalidated by his being retired, and at his death passes 
to the dependent members of his family. 

“§ 2. Retired Ministers, ... and their children under 
sixteen years of age, are Conference Claimants and beneficiaries 
of the moneys as hereinafter provided. For a year at a time, 
and without prejudice to their rights, such claimants may 
voluntarily relinquish their claim; or on recommendation of 
the Conference Stewards the claim may be disallowed by action 
of the Annual Conference, taken after opportunity to be heard 

has been given.” „ ... 

The Discipline (Paragraph 81, Section 4) further provides: 

“No member of the Conference shall have his relation changed 
until he has had opportunity to have his case presented to this 
Committee [Committee on Conference Relations], in person 

or by a representative.” . .,,, A 

We do not think that the Discipline permits the Annual Con¬ 
ference to change the relation of the Retired Minister as was 
done in this case without giving him an opportunity to be heard 
upon the subject, nor that such a penalty can be imposed for 
his absence from the Conference session. For all we know he 


232 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


may have been unable to attend by reason of sickness, or for 
some other reason just as valid and sufficient. Moreover, while 
Paragraph 36 of the Discipline states that Traveling Preachers 
are required to attend the sessions of Annual Conferences, it is 
not clear that this provision relates to Retired Ministers, in 
view of the provisions of Paragraph 188. This Paragraph 
states that every Retired Minister who is not employed as a 
pastor of a charge shall have a seat in the Quarterly Conference 
and all the privileges of membership in the church where he 
resides. He shall report to the Fourth Quarterly Conference 
and to the pastor all marriages solemnized and all baptisms 
administered. If he resides without the bounds of the Con¬ 
ference of which he is a member, he shall forward annually to 
his Conference a certificate of his Christian character and min¬ 
isterial conduct, together with an account of the number and 
circumstances of his family, signed by the District Superintend¬ 
ent of the District or the pastor of the charge within whose 
bounds he resides, without which the Conference shall not be 
required to allow his claim, and may, after due notice and due 
form and record of trial, locate him without his consent. The 
foregoing provisions would indicate that the Retired Minister 
who lives without the bounds of his Conference was not under 
obligation to attend the Annual Conference session, but might 
send his report, as above described; and that if he lived within 
the bounds of the Conference he should report to the Quarterly 
Conference or to the pastor of the church of which he had 
the privileges of a member. We do not find in this section any 
mandate expressed or implied for the Retired Minister to attend 
the Annual Conference; and certainly no loss of rights to 
share in the funds provided for ministerial support is im¬ 
posed as a penalty for non-attendance. 

It is our opinion that the relation of Mr. Smith could not 
legally under the Discipline be changed from Retired to Super¬ 
numerary without his consent or a hearing; and that the resolu¬ 
tion to make reparation for the loss thus sustained was legal 
and proper. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 11 

Report No. 9 

NOTICE TO NORTH-EAST OHIO CONFERENCE BY OHIO CONFERENCE 
OF PROPOSED CHANGE OF BOUNDARIES 

Your Committee has had under consideration the validity of 
a notice given to the North-East Ohio Conference by the Ohio 
Conference of a proposed change of Conference Boundaries. 

It appears that Paragraph 497 of the Discipline provides that 


11 Journal, 1920, pp. 410, 482-484. 



DECISIONS OF 1920 


233 


"no petition, resolution, or memorial involving change of bound¬ 
aries of Annual Conferences . . . shall be entertained by 

the [General Conference] Committee on Boundaries until legal 
notice shall have been given by the Secretary of the Annual 
Conference or Conferences . . . desiring such change . . . 
to the Secretaries of all the Annual Conferences . . . affected 
thereby.” 

The plain intention of the above provision, as it seems to us, 
is that an Annual Conference should be informed as to any 
proposed change in its boundaries, in order that its delegates 
may be either selected with that idea in mind or may be in¬ 
structed as to the wishes of the Conference in respect thereto. 
There can be no other reason for the provision. 

To this end the notice which is required to be given should 
not be so indefinite and general in its character that it can¬ 
not be learned from its reading what it is that is proposed. The 
notice which was given in the case now being considered read 
as follows: 

"Zanesville, Ohio, July 23, 1918. 

"Rev. E. A. Simons, Sec’y, 

"North-East Ohio Conference. 

"Dear Sir: In accordance with Paragraph 497, page 344, 
of the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, you are 
hereby instructed and requested to bring to the attention of 
the North-East Ohio Conference, at their next annual session, 
that the Ohio Conference will memorialize the General Con¬ 
ference of 1920 to so change and adjust the boundaries of the 
respective Annual Conferences of the State of Ohio as to form 
the State of Ohio into three Annual Conferences of equal ter¬ 
ritorial bounds. 

"Fraternally yours, 

"Charles W. Graham, Sec’y, 

"Ohio Conference.” 

This notice indicates: 

(a) The source from which it comes—an Annual Conference. 

(b) The purpose of the Conference to request a change of 
boundaries. 

(c) It does not, however, with sufficient explicitness indi¬ 
cate the change in the boundaries sought to be effected. While 
the change to be made is not required to be exactly specified in 
all respects, it must be sufficiently definite to inform the Con¬ 
ference notified of the plan which is to be proposed. All that 
the notice says in that respect is that the State is to be divided 
"into three Annual Conferences of equal territorial bounds.” 
This might be accomplished by straight lines running north 
and south, or east and west, as well as by lines running ir¬ 
regularly in either direction. It is not, therefore, sufficiently 
specific, and does not in our opinion constitute the legal notice 


Finding of 
Committee 


234 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


which the law requires to be given under Paragraph 497 to 
entitle the Committee on Boundaries to entertain a petition 
involving a change of boundaries. 

Presented and adopted, May 21. 12 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Report No. 10 

OMISSION OF ONE OR MORE QUARTERLY CONFERENCES 

The memorial of W. H. Shipman before your Committee asks 
that Section 5, Paragraph 190, of the Rules be declared un¬ 
constitutional as in conflict with Chapter 1, Section 35, of the 
Constitution, which provides that “a Quarterly Conference shall 
be organized in each pastoral charge, and be composed of such 
persons and have such powers as the General Conference may 
direct.” 

The Constitution does not fix, in express terms, the time 
for the meeting of the Quarterly Conference, nor as to how 
often it shall meet. And in the case of Annual Conferences 
there is no suggestion as to how often they shall meet, but 
it has always been accepted that an Annual Conference can 
only meet regularly once a year, and that has been the rule 
adopted by the Church. 

It is evident from the use of the word “Quarterly” in the 
name of the Quarterly Conference that it was the intention 
that the Conference should meet once in three months, or four 
times a year, so your Committee is constrained to hold that 
the rule adopted by the General Conference allowing one or 
more of the meetings of the Quarterly Conference to be omitted, 
or combined, is in conflict with the Constitution, and there¬ 
fore null and void. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 13 

Report No. 11 

RELATION OF ANNUAL CONFERENCES TO GENERAL BENEVOLENT 
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 

The Judiciary Committee has had referred to it the memorial 
from the Central Illinois Conference, asking a ruling upon 
this question: Whether or not an Annual Conference has the 
right of final determination as to the benevolent apportionments 
and programs to be handed down to the pastors and charges 
by the Disciplinary Benevolence Boards and properly authorized 
Benevolence Commissions. 

First. As to the Apportionments: It seems clear from Para¬ 
graph 407, Sections 3 and 4, that the Annual Conference does 


11 Journal , 1920, pp. 382, 484, 485 
13 Ibid., pp. 410,485, 486. 



DECISIONS OF 1920 


235 


not have the authority to change or interfere with the benevolence Finding of 
apportionments made to the charges by properly constituted Committee 
Benevolence Boards and Commissions. 

(a) The reference reads: “Each Benevolent Board, through 
its representatives, shall submit to the Commission on Finance 
a full statement of its needs and askings, and said Commis¬ 
sion shall have power to revise the askings of the several 
Boards, provided that no work already begun or planned by any 
Board shall be jeopardized by such revision. . . . Where the 
askings have been determined, the Commission shall make an 
equitable apportionment of the same to the Annual Confer¬ 
ences, Mission Conferences, and Missions, together with a state¬ 
ment of the amount asked for each Board. The Commission 
shall send the apportionments, as made to the charges, directly 
to the District Superintendents, who shall send the same to the 
pastors of the charges.” 

This language is explicit. It lodges the final authority as 
to the benevolence askings in the Commission of Finance only, 
and also specifies that these official askings shall be sent directly 
to the District Superintendents, and through them sent to the 
pastors. 

There is no indication that the askings are to go to the An¬ 
nual Conferences at all, for confirmation. The apportionments 
to the Conferences are only the sum of the apportionments made 
to the charges. 

(b) In Paragraph 80, Section 30, on the business of the An¬ 
nual Conferences, two questions are to be asked, “What is the 
aggregate of the benevolent collections ordered by the General 
Conference ?” and “What is the aggregate of the benevolent col¬ 
lections ordered by the Annual Conference ?” 

These questions plainly imply that certain benevolences are 
under the authority of the General Conference only, while 
certain others are under the control of the Annual Confer¬ 
ence. The benevolences involved in this memorial belong to the 
first class. 

(c) This interpretation is further emphasized and confirmed 
by Paragraph 85, under the Powers and Duties of the Annual 
Conferences, which orders that “each Annual Conference shall 
carefully meet the obligations laid upon it in connection with 
all our benevolent causes.” 

(d) In the Chapter on Duties of Pastors: Paragraph 182, 

Section 22, the pastor is required “to attend to the duties en¬ 
joined upon pastors in reference to Conference Claimants, For¬ 
eign Missions, Home Missions and Church Extension, Educa¬ 
tion, Sunday Schools, Freedmen’s Aid, and the Distribution of 
Tracts, to form societies and take collections in aid of these 
objects in such manner as the Discipline shall direct.” 

These causes specified are those ordered by the General Con- 


236 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


ference; hence are not under the authority of the Annual Con¬ 
ference, except in case of Conference Claimants. 

(e) This is confirmed in Paragraph 87, in the Powers and 
Duties of the Annual Conferences, where the presiding Bishop is 
instructed to “inquire of each pastor if he has carried out the 
Disciplinary plan for the support of the ministry and the 
benevolent causes.” In the same Paragraph the District Super¬ 
intendent is required to urge “in the Quarterly Conferences the 
collection in full for all the benevolent causes.” 

Second. As to the authority of the programs handed down 
by Benevolent Boards and Commissions: The language of the 
Discipline, Paragraph 409, Section 3, is: “The Commission on 
Finance is authorized and instructed to prepare a suggestive 
working program for the quadrennium. This program shall 
include special emphasis upon Evangelism, Christian Steward¬ 
ship, the education of the Church regarding the importance of 
our benevolent work, the circulation of our Church periodicals 
and of the special literature which may be necessary for the 
information of the Church on these subjects. It may include 
other items deemed wise by the Commission. ... It should 
give proper explanation of the Disciplinary plan and suggest 
methods of making it effective throughout the following work¬ 
ing units, namely: Episcopal areas. Conferences, Districts, and 
local churches.” 

This provision of the law plainly gives the Commission on 
Finance both “authority” and “instruction” to not only devise 
programs of benevolent work for the whole Church, but to also 
devise methods of making the plans effective. While the use 
of the word “suggestive” in this connection suggests some lati¬ 
tude in the method of carrying out the programs, it gives no 
authority to reject or resist them. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 14 

Report No. 12 

APPEAL FROM BISHOP'S RULING IN JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 

This is an appeal prosecuted by A. A. Sifert from a ruling 
of the presiding Bishop of a Judicial Conference convened at 
Omaha, Nebraska, May 30, 1917, and composed of the Triers of 
Appeals of respectively the Nebraska, Iowa, and Northwest 
Iowa Conferences. 

What purports to be a transcript of said Judicial Conference 
certified by its Secretary; also a transcript of the proceedings 
had in the Des Moines Annual Conference, and various items 
of correspondence passed between the presiding Bishop and 
appellant and his counsel have been submitted to us. 


14 Journal , 1920, pp. 410, 486-488. 



DECISIONS OF 1920 


237 


The assignment of errors filed in the cause consists of six 
paragraphs. The first alleges in substance, “that appellant was 
not given a fair and proper hearing and trial in the first 
instance”; that is in the proceedings in the Des Moines An¬ 
nual Conference. This specification raises no question here, 
inasmuch as the question sought to be raised thereby must 
have been raised, if at all, before the Judicial Conference. 
Therefore, it may be disregarded. 

Nor is either the 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th specification of alleged 
error sufficient to raise any question here, for the reason that 
neither of said specifications allege error of the presiding Bishop 
or Judicial Conference prejudicial to appellant, but each con¬ 
sists solely of argumentative details in alleged support and 
elaboration of the specification of alleged error in paragraph 2, 
which, stripped of unnecessary verbiage, is, in substance, “that 
said Bishop Stuntz erred in ruling that said appeal was not 
legally and properly taken” from the judgment of the Des 
Moines Annual Conference. 

If the appeal from the judgment of the Des Moines Annual 
Conference was not legally perfected, the ruling of the Bishop, 
in effect refusing to entertain the appeal, was correct and is 
entitled to our approval. 

It appears from the transcript of the proceedings of the 
Judicial Conference that appellant failed to give notice of his 
intention to appeal from the verdict of the Select Number, 
within the time and in the manner required by Paragraphs 287 
and 304, Section 11, respectively, of the Discipline of 1912 
(Paragraphs 296 and 313, Section 11, Discipline 1916). Such 
facts appearing, the presiding Bishop “ruled that the necessary 
steps were not taken in making the appeal, in that notice in 
writing of the appeal was not made to the Secretary of the 
Des Moines Annual Conference within thirty days after the 
verdict of the Conference, and that the counsel for the Church 
was not duly notified of the grounds of appeal.” From this 
ruling the appeal is prosecuted to the General Conference. 

By the provisions of the Discipline , in all cases of trial and 
conviction of members of an Annual Conference, an appeal 
should be allowed to a Judicial Conference, if the condemned 
person, within thirty days after his conviction, shall signify 
in writing to the Secretary of the Annual Conference his inten¬ 
tion to appeal (Paragraph 287, Discipline 1912), and at the same 
time he gives notice of his appeal he shall furnish to the officer 
receiving such notice and to the counsel for the Church a 
written statement of the grounds of his appeal (Paragraph 304, 
Section 11, Discipline 1912). 

It was therefore incumbent on appellant to comply substan¬ 
tially with all the provisions of the Discipline as to the form of 
the notice and the matters to be stated therein, as well as to 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


238 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

the time within which such notice might be given, on penalty 
of his notice being held insufficient. 

Appellant did not comply with the Disciplinary requirements 
above quoted, but seeks to excuse his failure by showing the 
giving by him of oral notice of this intention to appeal at the 
regular session of the Des Moines Annual Conference during 
which the verdict of the Select Number appointed by the Con¬ 
ference was returned. This notice he contends was sufficient 
under Paragraph 284 of the Discipline of 1912, and inasmuch 
as the notice was received and the Judicial Conference called 
to consider his appeal, the appeal should have been entertained. 

The Paragraph last above referred to provides in substance 
that when notice of an appeal has been given to the President of 
an Annual Conference he shall proceed, with due regard to the 
wishes and rights of appellant, to assemble a Judicial Confer¬ 
ence, fix the time and place of its sessions, and give notice 
thereof to the members of the Judicial Conference and all others 
concerned. 

In our opinion the notice referred to in Paragraph 284 is not 
intended, nor does it dispense with the giving of notice in the 
manner and at the time stipulated in Paragraphs 287 and 304, 
Section 11, of the Discipline, 1912. The notice referred to in 
Paragraph 284 is for the purpose of authorizing and directing 
the convening of the Judicial Conference and has nothing to 
do with its procedure. By the terms of Paragraph 304, Section 
1, appellate courts are directed to hear appeals regularly taken 
only. 

Appellant contends that inasmuch as the Judicial Conference 
was called, and for the sole purpose of considering his case, 
the Church has in effect waived the notice required by 
Paragraphs 287 and 304 of the Discipline , 1912. We do not 
think so. It has been generally, and we think correctly, held in 
the State courts that the parties cannot by stipulation or consent 
waive the issuance of service of the notice of appeal required by 
statute, for the reason that the statutory process or notice is 
essential to appellate jurisdiction and such jurisdiction cannot 
be conferred by consent. Further, at the earliest possible mo¬ 
ment during the proceedings of the Judicial Conference, counsel 
for the Church objected to the consideration of the appeal be¬ 
cause of appellant’s failure to give the notice required by the 
Discipline, This did not evidence waiver. 

Appellant having failed to perfect his appeal in the manner 
and form required by the Discipline was not entitled to have it 
entertained by the Judicial Conference. The ruling of the 
Bishop is approved. 

Presented and adopted. May 25. 15 

u Journal, 1920, pp. 410, 488-490. 



DECISIONS OF 1920 


239 


Report No. 13 

LEGALITY OF SPECIAL ANNUAL CONFERENCE SESSION 

Your Judiciary Committee has had under consideration a 
question raised by the Northern German Conference as to the 
legality of certain action taken at a special session of that Con¬ 
ference which was called on March 25, 1920, by the resident 
Bishop, who issued the call upon the request of a number of 
members of the Conference. 

The Constitution of the Church in Paragraph 41, Section 2, 
provides for the calling of an extra session of the General Con¬ 
ference by a majority of the General Superintendents “by and 
with the advice of two thirds of the Annual Conferences.” In 
Section 3 of the same Paragraph is to be found the only ex¬ 
press provision which is made as to special sessions of an An¬ 
nual Conference. It is as follows: “In the case of a great 
emergency two thirds of the General Superintendents may call 
special sessions of the Annual Conferences at such time and 
place as they may think wise, to determine the question of an 
extra session of the General Conference, or to elect delegates 
thereto.” 

The language used clearly indicates that the provision above 
cited refers only to a call of all the Annual Conferences and only 
for the purpose of determining the question whether there shall 
be an extra session of the General Conference, or to elect dele¬ 
gates thereto. 

Nothing is said and no provision is made for calling a special 
session of a single Annual Conference for the consideration of 
matters special to it. Does it follow that no special session can 
be called, and if called that action at a session so called would 
be invalid? 

We think it is plain that no authority has been conferred upon 
a resident Bishop to call a special session of an Annual Confer¬ 
ence. As he has not been given the power by a Constitutional or 
statutory provision, he does not possess it. A petition signed by 
some of the members of the Conference asking him to call it 
in extra session can confer no authority upon him to issue such 
a call, and if such a call is issued by him the members of the 
Conference are under no obligations to attend a Conference so 
called. 

The fact that no authority exists to issue a call for a special 
session might not necessarily invalidate the proceedings taken 
at such session, if all the members attended and participated in 
the proceedings. That question, however, is not here and is 
not decided. The Secretary's minutes, which are in our hands, 
show, however, that all the members of the Conference did not 
attend the session. The number present was thirty-one and the 
number absent was twelve. Those present were not unanimpus 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


240 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

aotion 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


in the action taken. Under these circumstances we are obliged 
to advise you that it is our opinion that the proceedings taken 
at such unauthorized session were null and void. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 16 

Report No. 14 

RULINGS OF BOARD OF BISHOPS 

Your Committee on Judiciary respectfully reports that the 
Rulings of the Bishops, as submitted to said Committee by the 
Secretary of the Board of Bishops in pursuance of authority so 
to do, conferred on him by the General Conference, are hereto 
appended with our rulings thereon. 

[Twenty-six Rulings follow with the comments of the Com¬ 
mittee on Judiciary. 17 ] 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 18 

Report No. 15 

SABBATH ELECTIONS FOR TRUSTEES 

By action of the General Conference a resolution by Daniel 
Westfall and others of the West Virginia Conference is before 
the Judiciary Committee, requesting a decision on the validity 
of Sabbath elections for Trustees for our church property. 

As it appears that at the common law all business other than 
judicial proceedings could be lawfully transacted on Sunday, the 
Committee is of the opinion that the election of Trustees for 
church property by Quarterly Conferences on Sunday is valid, 
unless there be a particular statutory enactment of the State 
where such election is held prohibiting business transactions 
on Sunday that could be construed to include the election of 
church Trustees. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 19 

Report No. 16 

DIVISION BETWEEN CONNECTIONAL BOARDS OF BEQUESTS TO THE 
CONSOLIDATED BOARD BETWEEN 1904 AND 1908 

The Judiciary Committee to which has been referred the 
matter of the division of bequests made to the Consolidated 
Board, known as the “Board of Education, Freedmen’s Aid, and 
Sunday Schools,” during the quadrennium 1904-1908, between 


"Journal, 1920, pp. 410, 490, 491. 

17 These Rulings will be found in Part III, pp. 328-333. 

18 Journal , 1920, pp. 413, 491-496. 

19 Ibid., pp. 412,496,497. 



DECISIONS OF 1920 241 

the several Boards succeeding to said Consolidated Board upon 
its dissolution, presents the following report: 

The General Conference of 1904 consolidated the Connectional 
Boards, the Board of Education, Freedmen’s Aid and Southern 
Educational Society, and the Sunday School Union and Tract 
Society, into one board called the “Board of Education, Freed- 
men’s Aid, and Sunday Schools." 

The General Conference of 1908 adopted another plan of 
organization for this benevolent work of the Church, and again 
created separate Connectional Boards called the Board of Edu¬ 
cation, the Freedmen’s Aid Society, and the Board of Sunday 
Schools; and these new Boards severally took over the work in 
the different fields covered by the operations of their predecessor. 
The division of activities between these existing Boards, how¬ 
ever, is not precisely the same as that which obtained between the 
separate Boards before the consolidation, in that the work in 
the white schools of the South formerly conducted by the Freed- 
men’s Aid and Southern Education Society was placed within 
the province of the Board of Education. 

During the quadrennium 1904-1908 various wills were made 
containing bequests to the Consolidated Board which since 1908 
have been admitted to probate, and from these estates legacies 
have been paid over to the several Connectional Boards now 
existing. From the foregoing facts arises the question of the 
proper division to be made between the separate Connectional 
Boards of the receipts from the said bequests, neither the Gen¬ 
eral Conference of 1908 nor the Managers of the Consolidated 
Board having taken any action upon the subject. 

It appears from the minutes of the Executive Committee 
and of the Board of Managers of the Consolidated Board that 
its receipts from various sources were divided in certain propor¬ 
tions or percentages between the several benevolent activities or 
departments of the benevolent work under its jurisdiction and 
control. Such division, however, was subject to change at any 
time that the judgment of the Board of Managers so dictated; 
and it is our opinion that it would not have been within the 
province of the Judiciary Committee to control the exercise of 
such discretion, since that was not a question of law but of 
administration; and we must assume that the division was made 
in accordance with the needs of the various departments of the 
work as understood by the Managers of the Consolidated Board. 
The same observation would apply to the disposition of the 
moneys received from the bequests above mentioned, made 
to the Consolidated Board. It seems to us, therefore, that it 
is not competent for us to go further in this matter than to 
say: 

First—Funds collected or received by gift or devise for a 
specific purpose must be devoted to that object, and in the case 


Finding of 
Committee 


242 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


of the latter must follow the channel indicated by the intention 
of the donor. 

Second—Moneys received without any direction or under¬ 
standing that they are to be used for a particular purpose may 
be devoted to such uses as the Managers of the Consolidated 
Board, were it in existence, might in their judgment determine; 
and, inasmuch as this work is now under the control of the 
separate Boards, it is their province to agree upon the division 
of the receipts from these bequests or ask for the direction of 
the General Conference in the matter. The Judiciary Committee 
cannot properly pass upon the question which is not one of 
law but of administration, and would not assume to advise 
the Boards upon a subject, since the latter are more familiar 
with the nature and needs of the benevolent work under their 
supervision and control. 

Third—It is our judgment that the rate of interest which 
should be allowed, when the division is made upon the moneys 
in the possession of the several Boards arising from these be¬ 
quests, is within the judgment of the Managers of the Boards 
and should be settled by them. We cannot see that there is any 
legal obligation in the premises, further than to account for 
the interest actually received. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 20 

Beport No. 17 

MARIE CHURCH APPEAL 

Your Judiciary Committee has had under consideration what 
is entitled “An Appeal” on behalf of the Marie Methodist Epis¬ 
copal Church of Chicago, Illinois. This appeal was referred 
to us by your action, and it has received due consideration at 
our hands. It grows out of a controversy which has been before 
the General Conferences of 1908, 1912, and 1916. It is full 
time to end it. We note in the appeal this statement: “The con¬ 
troversy was kept alive too long. If the authorities had acted 
promptly with the 1908 or 1912 General Conference orders, 
both churches (Trinity and Marie) would have been saved.” It 
is unfortunately true not only that the General Conferences 
orders of 1908 and 1912, but also of 1916, have not been com¬ 
plied with. If they had been, we should have been spared this 
appeal. Why is it that the orders of 1916 have not been com¬ 
plied with? And for how long are they to remain uncomplied 
with? 

We shall not review the history of this controversy or set forth 
herein the action of the General Conferences of 1908 or of 
1912. . What we are now alone concerned with is the action 
taken in 1916 and the failure to carry it into effect. The appeal 
Journal, 1920, pp. 412, 497, 498, 



DECISIONS OF 1920 


243 


brings here the orders of 1916, and those orders are the only 
ones which are now in force and therefore the only ones which 
can be considered. The General Conference of 1916 directed 
that Trinity Church be restored to its full right and privileges 
in the General and Rock River Conferences—of which rights 
and privileges it had been deprived since 1908—if it transferred 
the title to all of its property to the Chicago Home Mission 
and Church Extension Society in trust for the purposes of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in that city; and if it also dis¬ 
continued all actions at law and suits in equity pending in the 
courts against Marie Church and its Trustees and pastors or 
against any one of them. It was provided, however, that Trinity 
Church was not required to release any judgment obtained by it, 
establishing the fact that it held none of its property in trust 
for the Marie Church, and Marie Church was also directed to 
release any judgments which it had obtained against Trinity 
Church or its officers, and was to discontinue any suits pending 
against that church or its officers. 

In case the above conditions were not complied with prior to 
October 1, 1916, the Bishop was directed to proceed immediately 
to consolidate Trinity Church and Marie Church, and if it 
seemed to him desirable any other of our churches in the same 
section of the city of Chicago, and he was directed to approve 
the first Board of Trustees. He was empowered to give a new 
name to the consolidated church, or to retain one of the old 
names if he preferred. The Bishop was also authorized to take 
such other steps as might be necessary to carry out the purposes 
of the General Conference as indicated in the report of the 
Judiciary Committee. 

The Bishop indicated to the churches concerned that he pre¬ 
ferred that there should be a consolidation. An official meeting 
of Trinity Church was held on September 30, and a meeting 
of the congregation on October 2, 1916. The Bishop com¬ 
municated the directions of the General Conference, and the 
proposition as submitted by him for consolidation was unani¬ 
mously adopted by those present, and the Trustees named by 
the Bishop under the order of the General Conference were 
unanimously elected. 

The Bishop wrote the pastor of Marie Church on September 
18, 1916, that in order to carry out the action of the General 
Conference which had authorized him to consolidate the two 
churches it seemed to him to be necessary for the Marie corpora¬ 
tion to take definite action dissolving itself. He accordingly 
asked that a meeting of the Marie congregation should be called 
for September 22 to take appropriate action whereby it would 
be dissolved. On September 19 there was sent to the pastor 
of Marie Church a copy of a resolution which it was hoped 
would be adopted by the members of that church, providing that 


Question 

referred 


244 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


it should cease to exist as a separate church when consolidated 
with Trinity Church. The meeting was held, but instead of 
adopting the resolution as forwarded one was adopted reaffirm¬ 
ing action taken in April, 1912, and which declared “that we 
refuse to disband our church” and “that our conscience will 
not permit us to do so; we refuse to be a party to the destruc¬ 
tion of any church, much less our own.” 

They addressed a letter to the Bishop in which they stated 
at great length their reason for not acceding to his request and 
stated that he had failed to give due consideration to the cause 
of their church. In that letter they declared: “We know 
our rights as Methodists and stand upon them. If we are denied 
them, we must assert our rights as men and Americans, and 
refuse to be consolidated as the lamb is consolidated with the 
lion which has swallowed it.” 

In taking the above position Marie Church has declined to 
abide by the judgment rendered by the General Conference of 
1916. A stage has now been reached in this long, unhappy, and 
most unwise controversy, in which Marie Church has complained 
of the rebellious attitude of Trinity Church when the latter 
church is ready to obey the directions of the General Confer¬ 
ence and Marie Church declines to yield obedience thereto. It 
refuses to consolidate. It now is itself in contempt of the Gen¬ 
eral Conference. The letter referred to stated that the attempt 
to disorganize Marie “surely is not conformity to the orders of 
the General Conference, but a manifest evasion with the 
semblance of conformity.” It continues: “We confess we are 
unspeakably grieved to find that our chief pastors in Chicago can 
see a satisfactory solution of these difficulties by punishing the 
loyal church which three General Conferences have endeavored 
to protect with a virtual order to annihilate herself. ... We 
simply refuse to believe that the General Conference has au¬ 
thorized such rank injustice.” 

The “Appeal,” and that is what is here for our consideration, 
does not, in fact, rest upon any pretext that the orders of the 
General Conference were not clearly expressed or that Marie 
Church misapprehended them. The appeal rests upon the claim 
that the action taken was invalid, as well as unjust and unwise, 
and that this General Conference should revise the action taken 
in 1916. We see not the slightest reason for thinking that the 
action taken four years ago was for any reason invalid, or that 
under all the circumstances as they existed it was unjust and 
unwise, or that it should be reversed. 

The Bishop resident at Chicago has submitted to the Com¬ 
mittee a memorandum which we incorporate in part herein, 
that the General Conference may have the facts as he under¬ 
stands them. It follows: 

“The matter was taken up by the Bishop immediately upon 


DECISIONS OF 1920 


245 


his return to Chicago after the General Conference of 1916. 
Frequent conferences with the Trustees of Trinity disclosed the 
fact that they were perfectly willing to carry out the conditions 
imposed by the General Conference, and were willing to transfer 
by deed the property to the Chicago Home Mission and Church 
Extension Society. It developed that the Trustees of Marie had 
strenuously objected to having the property so transferred. 
It further developed, on careful examination, that there was 
practically no Society at Marie competent to act under the laws 
of the State of Illinois, the congregation having been almost 
entirely dissipated. Various other conditions appeared, and 
after careful consultation with many responsible and well- 
informed members of the Rock River Conference and con¬ 
spicuous laymen in Chicago Methodism it was thought wise to 
proceed under the second recommendation. Accordingly, with 
the full consent of the Trinity Trustees, the Bishop appointed 
a Board of nine Trustees; only four of these were chosen from 
the old Trinity corporation, the remainder being substantial 
laymen such as George W. Dixon, Perley Lowe, and Albert W. 
Harris; and there were also added to this Board two members 
of the Marie organization, one of whom served for a time, the 
other of whom refused to serve. The whole matter of the pro¬ 
posed settlement was referred to the Rock River Conference 
at the session in October, 1916, and, after a full discussion in 
open Conference, the action of the Bishop was approved, only 
three members voting against it, and was made a matter of 
record in the Journal ” 

Throughout the quadrennium patient and careful attention 
has been given to all the details of this difficult and delicate 
matter with the following result: First, the judgments mentioned 
in the decision of 1916 were disposed of in accordance with the 
action of the General Conference. The Trustees of the Trinity 
corporation expressed an earnest desire to have the whole matter 
satisfactorily disposed of, and to end the controversy. Through¬ 
out the negotiations this was their uniform spirit. They, there¬ 
fore, asked that the matter should be referred to Rev. James M. 
Wheaton, of the Chicago Title and and Trust Company, that 
they should go over the whole case and present a memorandum 
of all judgments in question, that there might be no further 
controversy. The Bishop extended the time beyond October 1 
mentioned in the act of the General Conference to permit of 
this investigation and action. In due time the list was pre¬ 
sented by the Chicago Title and Trust Company, and was dis¬ 
posed of by the discharge of the judgments and all known legal 
action. Doctor Swift, District Superintendent, has in his posses¬ 
sion here at the seat of the General Conference the receipt show¬ 
ing the discharge. Furthermore, certain personal claims made 
by Mr. Wheaton have been discharged and that matter recently 


Question 

referred 


246 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


settled, we understand, to his satisfaction. The Trinity Trustees 
for some time demurred to the payment of money which in¬ 
volved the expenses of certain parties who came to the General 
Conference of 1916 to press the case against their own corpora¬ 
tion, but on the urgent request of the District Superintendent, 
the Bishop, and the Superintendent of City Missions they 
finally consented to the payment of this bill that there might be 
no possible chance for further controversy. We thus believe that 
they did all that the General Conference ordered and more, in 
excellent spirit. 

In regard to the new name, the Bishop found that the char¬ 
ter of the First Methodist Episcopal Church of Chicago, popu¬ 
larly known as old Clark Street, required the continuance of the 
Trinity corporation, as by that charter Trinity must in per¬ 
petuity appoint three of the Trustees of Clark Street. When the 
new building, which is to be a great downtown Protestant center 
in Chicago, was projected it was deemed unwise to apply for 
a change in the First Church charter, and it was therefore 
deemed wise to preserve the corporation under the name of 
Trinity, but services were discontinued in the old Trinity Church 
and the new Trustees acquired the magnificent property of the 
Saint Paul Universalist Church one block away, transferred 
their services there, the church being a consolidation of Trinity 
and Marie, with the proviso that when the funds of the City 
Missionary Society and of the church permitted we should un¬ 
doubtedly begin mission work in the Marie chapel as originally 
intended. That purpose has never been abandoned and is still 
the full intention of the Church authorities at Chicago at an 
early date, and the present Trustees of Trinity Church have 
voted unanimously to allow the Marie property to be used for 
such mission center. To carry out more fully and to the letter 
the suggestions of the General Conference, the new church was 
named the New Trinity. Later the Negro invasion made it 
necessary to make the splendid new Trinity property a Negro 
church, and it has been turned over on contract to the Trustees 
of the South Park Methodist Episcopal Church, of the Lexing¬ 
ton Conference. Prior to that the property was deeded with 
the full Disciplinary clauses in trust for the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, and the transfers all contain similar clauses. Further¬ 
more, a lien was placed upon the property to guarantee the 
Board of Home Missions and Church Extension in Philadelphia, 
for gifts which they made for the work of the church, so that 
the property is doubly committed to the Methodist Episcopal 
Church under the Discipline. 

By unanimous consent of all parties interested, it was left 
with the Bishop to decide what should be the new name given 
the Negro church. It has been suggested that it should be 
called the John Stewart Memorial, in honor of the first mis- 


DECISIONS OF 1920 


247 


sionary of our Church, the Negro John Stewart, and which is 
the present intention of the Bishop to so name it. 

Since coming to this General Conference the Trustees of 
Trinity have submitted to the Bishop a proposition for the lease 
of the Trinity property on Indiana Avenue at a rental of $2,400 
a year, with the prospect of sale. They have shown a clear 
understanding and good faith by the statement that they do not 
consider they have authority even to lease this property without 
the consent and signature of the Bishop, and in granting the 
privilege the Bishop has restated the conditions, emphasizing 
the fact that even the proceeds of the rentals of said property 
must be at the disposal of the Methodist Episcopal Church. No 
objection to this statement has been made by the Trustees. It 
is therefore the belief of the Bishop and the District Superin¬ 
tendent and those closely associated with them that not only was 
the letter of the act of the General Conference of 1916 com¬ 
plied with, but, further, that the whole matter has been dis¬ 
posed of in the full spirit of justice, righteousness, and the 
action of the General Conference of 1916, and that a most 
happy solution and outcome of a long and vexed controversy 
has been found. 

There can be no doubt as to what the General Conference of 
1916 ordered. In a certain situation which arose the Bishop 
was directed to consolidate the two churches, Trinity and Marie. 
The power of consolidation is in the power of the Bishop (see 
Discipline, Paragraph 571 and the Journal 1900, p. 422), and 
the General Conference ordered the power exercised in this case. 
If the consolidation could not be accomplished by the voluntary 
action of the two churches, the intention was plainly expressed 
that the Bishop should take whatever steps were necessary to 
effect the consolidation. 

We are not at this time prepared to recommend any further 
action than the dismissal of the appeal of Marie Church which 
seems to us entirely without merit, insofar as any legal ques¬ 
tions are involved. We are as appreciative of the original wrong 
done to that church as was our Committee and the General 
Conference of 1908 and 1912. The modified action that was 
recommended by the Committee in 1916 was based on what 
seemed to the Committee and to the General Conference to be 
best for Chicago Methodism. The Rock River Conference and 
Chicago Methodism seem to be of a similar opinion. We hope 
that Marie Church will upon mature consideration yield its own 
opinion to the opinion of the constituted authorities of Meth¬ 
odism, and that it will of its own accord agree voluntarily to the 
consolidation proposed. 

Presented and adopted, May 25. 21 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


21 Journal , 1920, pp. 412, 498-504. 



248 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Report No. 18 

BIGHT OF MALE MISSIONARIES TO SIT AT THE ANNUAL 
CONFERENCE 

Memorial No. 837 was referred to the Judiciary Committee 
by order of the General Conference, on the representation of the 
Chairman of the Committee on Itinerancy that it involved “the 
question of the right of male missionaries to be seated in the 
Annual Conference, when the Constitution says that the Annual 
Conference is composed of traveling ministers.” ( Daily Advo¬ 
cate, page 363.) 

The reading of the memorial in conjunction with certain 
paragraphs of the Discipline hereinafter quoted will disclose that 
no legal question is raised by the memorial, and that the ques¬ 
tion raised is, in fact, one of administration and within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Missions. 

The memorial, omitting the names of the signers, is in terms 
as follows: 

Whereas, Paragraph 36 of the Discipline of 1916 provides that 
the Annual Conference shall be composed only of traveling 
preachers; and 

Whereas, Paragraph 423 of the Discipline of 1916 allows lay 
male missionaries of the Board of Foreign Missions to sit as 
associate members of Annual Conferences; and. 

Whereas, The appointment to missionaryship of the Board of 
Foreign Missions is limited to Americans and is not enjoyed 
by any Indian in India; therefore, be it 

Resolved, That we memorialize the General Conference either 
to expunge Paragraph 423 of the Discipline of 1916 from the 
Discipline, so that no distinction may be made in favor of the 
American lay missionary as against an Indian lay worker, or 
to allow the same privilege to Indians as it allows to the 
Americans. 

The management and disposition of the affairs of the Board 
of Foreign Missions is vested in a Board of Managers consisting 
of the General Superintendents and thirty-two laymen and 
thirty-two traveling ministers of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church elected by the General Conference upon nomination of 
the Bishops (Paragraph 414, Section 2, Discipline of 1916). 

Lay missionaries shall be appointed by the Board of Managers 
(Paragraph 419, Section 2). 

The terms of Paragraph 423 provide that lay male mission¬ 
aries of the Board of Foreign Missions may be invited to sit as 
associate members of their respective bodies, and be permitted 
the privileges of the floor and the right to vote on all questions 
not ministerial or constitutional, and shall be eligible for elec¬ 
tion on Mission or Conference Finance or other Committees. 

It will be seen that the appointment of “lay missionaries” is 


DECISIONS OF 1920 


249 


not restricted by the Discipline to Americans or persons of any 
particular nationality. The restriction, if any there be, is in 
the administration of the above provision of the Discipline. 

We are not concerned with the fact, if it be a fact, that 
Indians are not appointed lay missionaries. That is a matter 
for the Board of Managers of the Board of Foreign Missions 
to determine. It is not contended that the General Conference 
did not have the power to enact Paragraph 423 of the Discipline 
of 1916, but that the limitation of appointment of lay mission¬ 
aries to Americans is a discrimination in favor of Americans, 
and against Indian lay workers. We express no opinion as to 
the constitutionality of Paragraph 423. 

The prayer of the memorial is in the alternative ; either that 
Paragraph 423 be expunged, in which event lay workers of 
whatever nationality might not sit in the Conference; or, that 
the privilege now accorded American lay missionaries be ex¬ 
tended to and accorded Indian lay workers. 

Inasmuch as no legal question is raised by the memorial, it is 
respectfully returned with the suggestion that the memorial and 
a copy of this memorandum be referred to the Committee on 
Foreign Missions. 

Presented and adopted, May 26. 22 

Report No. 19 

APPEAL FROM APPOINTMENT BY BISHOP BURT 

Your Committee on Judiciary having carefully considered 
the appeal of N. L. Rockey, of the North India Conference, 
to the action of Bishop William Burt, in the appointment of 
James Devadason to be vice-principal of the Bareilly Theological 
Seminary, reports as follows: 

That Bishop William Burt was clearly within his rights in 
making this appointment, for the following reasons: 

1. The Discipline provides that the Bishop may appoint “the 
presidents, principals, and teachers of institutions of learning 
under our care” (Paragraph 208, Section 3, Item 7). Ba¬ 
reilly Theological Seminary is such an institution. 

2. There are three plans by which our universities, colleges, 
and theological seminaries are held and controlled. In America 
they are incorporated with Boards of Trustees who select the 
officers and teachers. If any of these be members of an Annual 
Conference, the Bishop may make the appointment in harmony 
with the selection of the Board. 

The great Union Universities of China are all held and con¬ 
trolled under special charters granted by the State of New York. 
The Boards of Trustees are in America. They select the officers 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


22 Journal, 1920, pp. 429, 504, 505. 



250 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


and instructors, and the Bishops make the appointments of 
Annual Conference members accordingly. 

But institutions like the Bareilly Theological Seminary are 
held and controlled by the Board of Foreign Missions, and 
are distinctly Foreign Mission property. The Bishops are ex¬ 
pected to appoint the officers and teachers of such institutions 
as they appoint pastors to charges. The Bishops have in fact 
followed this practice throughout the history of Bareilly Theo¬ 
logical Seminary. 

In the opinion of your Committee, the action of Bishop Wil¬ 
liam Burt in making this appointment should be approved. 

Presented and adopted, May 26. 23 

Repoet No. 20 

RELATION OF BISHOP TO HIS FORMER ANNUAL CONFERENCE 

This is a memorial based on the affirmative action taken by 
the General Conference of 1912 upon Report No. 30 from the 
Committee on the Judiciary of that session, said report and 
affirmative action thereon being entered in the Journal of the 
General Conference on page 587. In that action the judgment 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, to the effect that when a 
traveling Elder is elected to the episcopacy his relation to his 
Annual Conference is not terminated but suspended, was upheld 
by the General Conference. The memorial now under considera¬ 
tion, based on that ruling of 1912, asks specific rulings on some 
thirteen points deduced therefrom. 

The language of the memorial is: “Whereas, in 1912 the 
General Conference ruled ( Journal, p. 587) that ‘election to the 
office of Bishop does not terminate membership in an Annual 
Conference/ and also that ‘during his incumbency of his office 
of Bishop he can exercise only such rights as are compatible with 
said office, and may not engage the rights of a member of an 
Annual Conference which are incompatible therewith. As to 
such matters his connection with his Annual Conference is in 
suspension while occupying the episcopal office/ The aim of 
this memorial is ... to inquire whether . . etc. Before 
stating these inquiries and the answers given, the Committee 
on the Judiciary wishes it understood that there is almost 
nothing in the Discipline itself on which to base the answers. 
The practice of the Church regarding the limitations put upon 
the episcopal office is almost the only real guidance upon the 
questions here involved. This unwritten law is summed up in 
the decision rendered in the General Conference of 1912, and 
by the affirmation of that body now becomes the guide to sub¬ 
sequent rulings. 


* 9 Journal , 1920, pp. 429, 505, 506. 



DECISIONS OF 1920 


251 


Applying that ruling to the questions in the memorial, we 
reach the following conclusions, the nature of the questions 
being indicated in the answers: 

1. It would be allowable to carry the name of a Bishop in 
the roll of the Conference where he held membership when 
elected, but not compulsory. 

2. It would not be required that the Annual Conference mem¬ 
bership of each Bishop be stated in the General Minutes in con¬ 
nection with his name. 

3. Paragraph 168 would permit a Bishop, if he desired, to 
have his name enrolled in some other Conference than the one 
of which he was a member when elected. 

4. The name of a Bishop, if carried on his Annual Confer¬ 
ence roll, may be counted in calculating the basis of General 
Conference representation. 

5. It would not be compatible with his office for a Bishop, 
when presiding in the Conference where his membership re¬ 
sides, to vote in a division 24 upon constitutional questions or 
for General Conference delegates. In these matters his rights 
in the Annual Conference are suspended by the requirements 
of the episcopal office. 

6. It would not be compatible with his office for the Bishop 
to be elected a delegate to the General Conference, because his 
duties are entirely administrative and not legislative. He can¬ 
not fill executive and legislative offices at the same time. 

7. It is not compatible with the provisions of our Church law 
for a retired Bishop to be classed with the retired ministers of his 
Annual Conference. He is still a Bishop after retirement, with 
claim on the whole Church. He ceases to be a Bishop only by 
resigning the office, or by the result of trial for misconduct. 

8. It would not be compatible with his new office for a dele¬ 
gate to the General Conference, who has been elected to the 
episcopacy, to retain his seat as a delegate to the close of the 
session, for reasons stated above. 

These answers cover all the points raised in the memorial. 

Presented and adopted, May 26. 25 

Thus end the reports of the Committee on Judiciary, pre¬ 
sented quadrennially from the General Conference of 1876 
to that of 1920 without interruption. Besides the relatively 
small number not acted upon or not adopted, the reports 
adopted, including two that were received and entered on the 
Journal, number one hundred and ninety in their total. 

« The Daily Christian Advocate uses the words “tie or” in place of this 
word “division.” (May 26, 1920, p. 534.) 

K Journal, 1920, pp. 429, 506, 507. 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 



252 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Report of 
Committee on 
Judiciary in the 
case of 

C. I. Witherow 


They cover a wide field of consideration; all evidence shows 
that their preparation necessitated an unusual degree of in¬ 
formation upon the subjects discussed; and apparent is the 
high purpose of the Committee, amid the confusions of the 
General Conference sessions, to better our unfinished ecclesi¬ 
astical code. Judged by the results attained, the mission of 
the Committee is abundantly confirmed. 

H. W. Rogers, chairman of the Committee on Judiciary, 
stated that a memorial regarding the Rev. C. I. Witherow, of 
the North Carolina Conference, which had not been referred 
to the committee, but upon which a decision should be given, 
was in his hands, and if authorized he would report upon it. 

Authority was given, and H. W. Rogers presented the fol¬ 
lowing report: 

The memorial is to this effect, that Mr. Witherow, who was 
a member of the North Carolina Conference, believed that he 
was transferred by the Bishop to the Washington Conference, 
and that he was given an appointment there for two years in 
succession. At the end of the first year the North Carolina Con¬ 
ference, evidently believing that he had not been transferred, 
assigned him to an appointment in Virginia—I think it was in 
Virginia, but that is immaterial. He did not know of the as¬ 
signment; had no knowledge of it; did not go to it; made no 
explanation of his absence, not having had information as to 
his appointment. Thereupon the North Carolina Conference 
expelled him. Now, the matters in our hands do not satisfac¬ 
torily indicate whether Mr. Witherow knows what the facts are, 
or whether he is mistaken about the facts. The recommenda¬ 
tion of the committee is that this matter be placed in the hands 
of the Bishop having charge of the North Carolina Conference, 
with the request that he investigate the facts, and that if he 
finds that the transfer had been made from the North Caro¬ 
lina Conference, he should take steps to have the North Caro¬ 
lina Conference rescind its action of expulsion, which, under the 
circumstances stated, would clearly have been invalid. 

The report was adopted. 


PART II 

REPORTS NOT ACTED UPON OR NOT ADOPTED 


1888-1920 


























































































































































































































































































































































II 


REPOETS NOT ACTED UPON OR NOT ADOPTED 

1888-1920 

F OR reasons which are not impossible of explanation 
some reports of the Committee on Judiciary, following 
its organization in 1876, were not acted upon or were 
not adopted by the successive General Conferences ending 
with that of 1920. Exceptions to this universality occur in 
the case of the six Conferences of 1888, 1896, 1900, 1912, 
1916, and 1920, as noted in the previous Sections. 

Sometimes the crowded closing of the sessions naturally 
led to the omission of reports which were considered as less im¬ 
portant. Yet in this respect the Committee on Judiciary ap¬ 
parently suffered little, because of the fundamental character 
of the memorials or resolutions referred to it for con¬ 
sideration. 

Or the discussion of some reports would evidently have 
consumed undue time. An instance of this is found in the 
first case of the series, when, on motion of J. M. Buckley, 
there was recommitted Report No. 4, involving the con¬ 
stitutionality of Paragraph 188 as to the location of preachers 
without trial. 1 Nor did the Committee on Judiciary further 
report on the subject. Or, a further illustration was Report 
No. 5, at the same General Conference of 1888, involving the 
subjects of the election and enlarged authority of Presiding 
Elders and the restriction of the episcopal office to a term of 
years. This report, with its majority and minority fea¬ 
tures, was laid on the table, also on motion of J. M. Buckley. 2 
The mover probably felt that little profit would result from 
the discussion of these propositions, in comparison with the 
time which would be consumed. Nor least of all was this the 
case because such a question as the election of Presiding 

1 Journal, 1888, p. 246. 

*Ibid., p. 275. 

255 


Reasons for 
non-action or 
non-adoption 



256 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Insertion 

valuable 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Elders had been a matter of keen debate and varying judg¬ 
ment since the early days of Methodism. 

Or sometimes the subject involved was perhaps of too large 
importance for the distractions of the General Conference 
session. Such was that considered in Report No. 19, at the 
General Conference of 1916. With a minority report also 
presented, a most serious question was before the legislators 
as to the constitutionality of the doctrinal question in the 
Ritual now put to the candidate for full membership in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. That the matter might receive 
such deliberate and godly consideration as its magnitude de¬ 
served, its consideration was postponed till “the next ses¬ 
sion of the General Conference.” 3 

But, without presuming to enumerate all the reasons for 
non-action or non-adoption, in the case of certain reports of 
the Committee on Judiciary, their insertion here is regarded 
as valuable, because of any principle they may contain. 
With their detailed quotation is also added the information 
available as to their disposal and their page of record. 

1888 

Four reports presented at this General Conference were 
not acted upon, while the identity of another is in question. 
The separate quotation of the four is as follows: 

Report No. 4 

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PARAGRAPH 188: LOCATION WITHOUT 
TRIAL 

We have carefully considered a paper signed by James H. 
Potts, of the Michigan Conference, and others, asking us to 
consider whether Paragraph 188 of the Discipline , which pro¬ 
vides for the locating of unacceptable, inefficient, or secular 
preachers without formal trial, “is not an infringement upon 
the rights of our traveling preachers under the Constitution of 
the Church,” and report that, in our opinion, the said Para¬ 
graph is unconstitutional. 

Presented, read, and recommitted, May 14. 4 Not again pre¬ 
sented. 5 


* Journal , 1916, p. 443. 

4 Journal, 1888, p. 246. 

6 For text, see Daily Christian Advocate, May 15, 1888, p. 98. 



REPORTS NOT ADOPTED 


257 


Report No. 5 

PRESIDING ELDERS; EPISCOPACY 

The following questions, submitted by R. D. Utter and others, 
have been duly considered: 

May the Discipline be so changed, without resort to the Re¬ 
strictive Rule processes, as: 

1. To authorize the election of Presiding Elders by the An¬ 
nual Conferences? 

Answer. —No. Such assumption of authority would, in the 
opinion of a majority of your Committee, be in violation of the 
Third Restrictive Rule. The Constitution of the Church places 
the selection and appointment of Presiding Elders in the hands 
of the Bishops, and to restrict their prerogatives in this par¬ 
ticular, except by the constitutional process, would be an in¬ 
fraction of the organic law of the Church. 

May the Discipline be so changed, without resort to the Re¬ 
strictive Rule process, as : 

2. To give the Presiding Elders coordinate authority with 
the Bishops in fixing the appointments of the preachers? 

Answer .—No. By the organic law of the Church the Bishop 
alone is charged with the responsibility of “fixing the appoint¬ 
ments,” and cannot be relieved of this responsibility except in 
the way provided by the Constitution. 

May the Discipline be so changed, without resort to the Re¬ 
strictive Rule process, as: 

3. To restrict the tenure of the episcopal office to a term of 
years ? 

Answer .—No. A lifelong tenure of office is one of the attri¬ 
butes of that episcopacy, originated by our fathers, and which 
the General Conference “may not do away nor destroy.” 

May the Discipline be so changed, without resort to the Re¬ 
strictive Rule process, as: 

4. To assign the Bishops quadrennially to episcopal districts ? 

Answer. —No. Our episcopacy is general, not diocesan, a 

“plan of itinerant general superintendency,” and its form can¬ 
not be changed except by the constitutional process. 

(Minority Report) 

A minority of your Committee on Judiciary with reluctance 
are compelled to dissent from the view of the majority in rela¬ 
tion to the tenure of the office of Bishop. 

We believe that the Third Restrictive Rule carefully guards 
the office of the episcopacy and its prerogatives , but that it does 
not touch its tenure. 

It is our opinion, therefore, that it is within the power of the 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


258 KEPOBTS OP THE JUDICIAEY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


General Conference, in its wisdom, to limit the term of office of 
Bishops to be elected, as it may deem best. 

Both reports presented, and laid on the table, May 17. 6 Not 
afterward taken up. 7 


Report No. 7 

[No reference to such report is found in the Journal or the 
Daily Christian Advocate for 1888. The reports from this point 
are evidently misnumbered. But the original order is here¬ 
after followed, for the sake of agreement with the official publi¬ 
cations.] 

Report No. 10 

FRANK STREET CHURCH, ROCHESTER, N. Y. 

A number of resolutions, petitions, and memorials have been 
submitted to your Committee, asking that we provide some 
relief for the Frank Street Church, in the city of Rochester, 
N. Y., on which we report as follows: 

The papers presented show that the Frank Street Church has 
become involved in debt to the amount of $2,100 in defending 
itself in the courts against a suit brought by J. J. Landers, a 
former pastor, for an unpaid balance of salary, and that the said 
church is weak and unable to meet this obligation. It is claimed 
by those presenting the papers that this suit was carried through 
the several courts of New York to test and settle the question of 
the legal liability of a Methodist church for the amount of 
salary estimated for its pastor, and was therefore a cause of 
common interest to all Methodist churches; and, furthermore, 
that the said Frank Street Church was urged and encouraged 
to prosecute the defense in this case, and was promised by those 
who were supposed to represent the Church at large that it 
should have assistance in meeting the expenses of the same. 
After repeated but unsuccessful efforts to procure the needed 
relief, they have now appealed to this General Conference, and 
ask that the amount be paid out of the proceeds of the Book Con¬ 
cern. 

In reply, we would say that we deeply sympathize with this 
church in its embarrassment, and think it should have assistance. 
But, as the law of the Church forbids the appropriation of the 
produce of The Book Concern “to any purpose other than for 
the benefit of traveling, supernumerary, superannuated, and 
worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children,” we can¬ 
not recommend such a use of these funds as is here asked. 


8 Journal , 1888, p. 275. 

7 For text, see Daily Christian Advocate , May 18, 1888, p. 122. 



REPOETS NOT ADOPTED 


259 


Nor do we see any other way in which the General Conference 
can render the needed relief. 

Presented, May 29. 8 Not afterward acted upon. 9 

Repost No. 11 

TRUSTEES AS MEMBERS OF A QUARTERLY CONFERENCE 

Your Committee has received from George C. Round, of 
Manassas, Va., a number of appeals, on which we would report 
as follows: 

1. George C. Round presents an appeal taken from a decision 
made by Samuel A. Ball, Presiding Elder of the Alexandria 
District, Virginia Conference, to Bishop Bowman, presiding 
at the next session of that Conference; but we are without 
authentic information in the case. There are before us no au¬ 
thenticated documents from either the Annual Conference or 
the Bishop in regard to the matter; and we have no evidence, 
other than the statement of Round himself, that the appeal ever 
came before the Bishop. We can therefore make no decision in 
this case. 

2. Samuel A. Ball, a Presiding Elder of the Virginia Confer¬ 
ence, decided that a woman who was a Trustee could not, by 
reason of that fact, be a member of a Quarterly Conference. 
From this decision George C. Round appealed to Bishop Bow¬ 
man, presiding at the ensuing session of the Annual Conference, 
and the Bishop sustained the decision of the Presiding Elder. 
From the Bishop’s decision Round now appeals to the General 
Conference. Your Committee concur in the decision of Bishop 
Bowman, as the Discipline does not provide that women, as 
Trustees of church property, under the laws of the State may 
be members of a Quarterly Conference. 

3. The said Samuel A. Ball decided that George C. Round, 
being a member of another charge, could not be a member of the 
Quarterly Conference of Greenwood and Falmouth charge by 
reason of his being a Trustee of a church within the bounds of 
the said Falmouth and Greenwood charge. Upon appeal Bishop 
Bowman sustained this decision, and now the said Round ap¬ 
peals to this General Conference. Your Committee concur in 
the decision of the Bishop, as being in harmony with Meth¬ 
odist law and usage. A man cannot be a member of two Quar¬ 
terly Conferences at the same time, but must have Quarterly 
Conference membership in the charge where he has church mem¬ 
bership. 

Presented, May 29. 10 Not afterward acted upon. * 11 

8 Journal, 1888, p. 349. 

9 For text, see Daily Christian Advocate, May 30, 1888, p. 203. 

10 Journal, 1888, p. 349. 

11 For text, see Daily Christian Advocate, May 30, 1888, p. 203, 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 



260 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Reports 
for 1896 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


1896 

Following the General Conference of 1888, there was no 
instance of reports belonging in this classification at the ses¬ 
sion of 1892. The reports not acted upon at the General Con¬ 
ference of 1896 were but two in number, and were as follows: 

Report No. 3 

amusements; paragraph 240 

Your Committee has considered the matter embraced in the 
following preamble and resolution passed by the General Con¬ 
ference, to wit: 

" Whereas, The opinion has been expressed by several dis¬ 
tinguished writers that the enumeration of particulars concern¬ 
ing popular amusements, as found in Paragraph 240 of the 
edition of the Discipline of 1892, is unconstitutional as changing 
the General Rule which forbids those ‘diversions which cannot be 
used in the name of the Lord Jesus’ or adding thereto; there¬ 
fore, 

“Resolved, That this question be referred to the Committee 
on Judiciary for judicial opinion, to be reported to this body;” 
and it respectfully reports thereon as follows: 

It will be observed that the resolution quoted seeks an opinion 
only as to the constitutionality of that part of Paragraph 240 
relating to amusements, because of its specific enumeration there¬ 
in of the same, and not whether such amusements are diver¬ 
sions such as are forbidden by the General Conference Rule. 

We are of the opinion that Paragraph 240 of the Discipline 
was an act of legislation by the General Conference of 1872, 
and not a judicial construction of the General Rules upon the 
subjects contained in said section; [and] that the clause therein 
relating to specific amusements changes Section 30 of the Gen¬ 
eral Rules by adding thereto the amusements in said Para¬ 
graph 240, and is therefore in violation of Section 4, Paragraph 
67, of the Discipline, which declares that “the General Confer¬ 
ence shall not revoke nor change the General Rules of the United 
Societies.” 

Presented, May 22. 12 Not afterward acted upon. 13 

Report No. 4 

SUBSIDIES TO PUBLICATIONS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES 

Your Committee to whom was referred the following: 

“Resolved, That the Committee on Judiciary be requested to 
inquire and report by May 16 ‘whether there is anything in 

12 Journal , 1896, p. 273. 

13 For text, see Daily Christian Advocate, May 23, 1896, p. 158. 



REPORTS NOT ADOPTED 


261 


the Restrictive Rules or law of the Church authorizing or pre¬ 
venting the granting of subsidies by The Book Concern to 
publications in foreign countries/ ” respectfully report: 

First, Touching the Restrictive Rules specified in said resolu¬ 
tion, Section 6 of the Restrictive Rules, page 48 of the Discipline, 
Edition of 1892, provides that “the General Conference shall 
not appropriate the produce of The Book Concern ... to 
any purpose other than for the benefit of traveling, supernumer¬ 
ary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, 
and children.” 

Second, Touching the “law of the Church” referred to in said 
resolution. Section 404, page 198 of the Discipline, provides 
that “the profits arising from The Book Concern . . . shall 
be regularly applied to the relief of traveling, supernumerary, 
and superannuated ministers, their wives, widows, and chil¬ 
dren.” 

Your Committee is of the opinion that there is no law of the 
Church authorizing the General Conference or The Book Con¬ 
cern to grant subsidies to publications in foreign countries; and 
we are also of the opinion that by virtue of the laws above 
quoted The Book Concern, as well as the General Conference, 
are absolutely prohibited from making any such grant or grants. 

Presented, May 22. 14 Not afterward acted upon. 15 


1900 

Six of the seven reports not acted upon, at the General Con¬ 
ference of 1900, are only recorded in the Daily Christian 
Advocate of that year. In their subject matter all were per¬ 
haps of less importance than others which were adopted, and 
action on them was therefore omitted, in the pressure of the 
General Conference session. These reports were as follows: 

Report No. 2 

case presented; no appeal 

Examination of the case of S. C. Johnson, of the Vermont 
Conference, shows that there is no appeal. The Committee 
recommends that the records be returned to the Secretary of the 
Conference, to be filed and preserved under the provisions of 
Section 265 of the Discipline. 

Received and ordered printed, May 16. 16 Not afterward acted 
upon. 17 

14 Journal, 1896, p. 273. 

16 For text, see Daily Christian Advocate , May 23, 1896, p. 158. 

18 Journal , 1900, p. 258. 

17 For report, see Daily Christian Advocate , May 17, 1900, p. 220. 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Reports 
for 1900 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 




262 REPOETS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 


Finding of 
Committee 

Conference 

action 


Report No. 3 

STATUS OF MISSIONARY BISHOPS 

The resolution of H. L. Jacobs and R. H. Gilbert, instructing 
this Committee to inquire whether the “Status of Missionary 
Bishops” is in harmony with the Third Restrictive Rule, is an 
hypothetical question, from the consideration of which we are 
precluded by the resolution of May 7, limiting the jurisdiction 
of the Committee. The Committee so report. 

No action. Report not found in the Journal. 1 * 

Report No. 4 

GENERAL CONFERENCE AS JUDICIAL BODY 

The memorial of the Northern New York Conference, re¬ 
lating to the organization of the General Conference as a 
“judicial body” and to the method of amending the Discipline, 
which was referred to the Committee, is not within the scope 
of the powers of this Committee. We deem the subject of great 
importance, and recommend that it be referred to the Com¬ 
mittee of fifteen on the new Constitution. 

No action. Report not printed in the Journal 1 * 

Report No. 5 

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PARAGRAPH 248 

The Committee on Judiciary report that the question of the 
constitutionality of Section 248, of the Discipline, submitted in 
this inquiry comes within the restriction of our powers, being 
a supposititious case, and not referred to us by a vote of the 
General Conference first had. 

No action. Report not entered in the Journal . 20 

Report No. 7 

MISCONDUCT OF BISHOP 

The Committee report that the case of W. P. Maple, of the 
Northwestern Iowa Conference, does not present questions of 
law to be determined by this Committee, but of alleged lack of 
misconduct of a Bishop. 

We therefore recommend that it be referred to the Committee 
on Episcopacy. 

No ac tion. Report not found in the Journal. 21 

18 For report, see Daily Christian Advocate , May 18, 1900, p. 233. 

19 For report, see Daily Christian Advocate , May 18, 1900, pp. 233, 234. 

20 For report, see Daily Christian Advocate , May 19, 1900, p. 248. 

81 For report, see Daily Christian Advocate, May 19, 1900, p. 248. 



REPORTS NOT ADOPTED 


263 


Report No. 10 

AMENDMENT OF PARAGRAPH REGARDING APPEAL 

After careful consideration, the Committee on Judiciary 
recommend that Section 271 of the Discipline be amended by 
adding thereto the following: 

“But, in all cases of appeal, the appellant shall attach to or 
file with the records a specification of the errors relied on, and 
no appeal shall be entertained without such specification, : ” so 
that the entire section shall read as follows: 

“271. The General Conference shall carefully review the 
decisions of questions of law contained in the records and docu¬ 
ments transmitted to it from the Judicial Conference, and in 
case of serious error therein shall take such action as justice 
may require. But, in all cases of appeal, the appellant shall 
attach to or file with the records a specification of the errors 
relied on, and no appeal shall be entertained without such speci¬ 
fication.” 

No action. Report not printed in the Journal. 22 

Report No. 11 

CASE SUBMITTED SUPPOSITITIOUS 

To the inquiry of Theron Cooper, does Section 312 of the 
Discipline apply to the matters considered in Section 318, which 
was referred to us, the Committee reports: 

That they are forbidden the consideration of this question by 
the resolution of the Conference of May 7, 1900, for the reason 
that it is a supposititious case. 

No action. Report not entered in the Journal. 22 


1912 

The one report of the Committee on Judiciary which was 
not adopted at the General Conference of 1912 discussed the 
important subject of the appropriation of funds to Confer¬ 
ence Claimants. Reference to the Daily Christian Advocate 
for May 29, 1912, p. 770, gives the reasons assigned by 
speakers for its non-adoption. Its text was as follows: 

Report No. 5 

DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TO CONFERENCE CLAIMANTS 

Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred the ap¬ 
peal of William J. Libberton from the decision of the Bishop 
presiding in the Rock River Annual Conference, October 2, 

» For report, see Daily Christian Advocate, May 21, 1900, p. 267. 

« For report, see Daily Christian Advocate, May 21, 1900, p. 267. 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


Conference 

action 


Report 
of 1912 


Question 

referred 




264 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


1911, having carefully considered the same, submits the follow¬ 
ing report: 

The Rock River Annual Conference Minutes for the year 
1911 show that, upon presentation of resolutions by William J. 
Libberton as to the distribution of Conference funds to Con¬ 
ference Claimants, Bishop Hamilton ruled as follows: 

“The claim of a superannuate member of an Annual Con¬ 
ference to the annuity inheres in his Conference membership 
and the service he has rendered in the effective relation to the 
Conference. He may voluntarily relinquish his claim, but it 
cannot be withheld while his Conference membership continues.” 

From this ruling an appeal was taken to the General Con¬ 
ference of 1912. 

The papers on appeal are not specific in statement as to 
whether the decision refers to the distribution of the “Annual 
Conference Annuity Fund,” Paragraph 316 of the Discipline 
of 1908, or to the distribution of the “Annual Conference Special 
Fund,” Paragraph 317. 

Your Judiciary Committee therefore limits its reference in 
this case to its interpretation of the law as found in Paragraphs 
309, 316, and 317. 

In Paragraph 309 we find the statement that the claim to 
a “comfortable support” inheres in the gospel ministry, and 
rightly inures to the benefit of the preacher in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church when he is admitted to membership in the 
Annual Conference, and that it cannot be invalidated by his 
being superannuated. 

This seems to be a declaration of the preacher's inherent 
rights. This section, however, does not provide funds, and it 
appears evident that the “comfortable support” referred to as 
being his continuing right can only be given, that is, that the 
Annual Conference can only meet this obligation, to the extent 
that funds therefor may be or are provided in accordance with 
other Paragraphs of the Discipline. 

Paragraph 316 refers to the “Annual Conference Annuity 
Fund,” and Paragraph 317 to the “Annual Conference Special 
Fund.” In these two Paragraphs (316 and 317) seems to be 
the only provision for funds for Conference claimants at the 
disposal of the Annual Conference. These two funds we will 
consider. 

Paragraph 316, “Annual Conference Annuity Fund,” de¬ 
clares that it shall consist of the dividends from The Book 
Concern and the Chartered Fund and such parts of the annual 
receipts from congregations as each Annual Conference may 
determine, and such special gifts or bequests as may be made to 
or for this special fund. 

The Paragraph also declares that this fund must be dis¬ 
tributed upon the basis of years of service. 


REPORTS NOT ADOPTED 


265 


Your Committee is of the opinion that all distributions from 
this fund are based upon years of service and without regard to 
necessity, and therefore, if there is not enough in this fund to 
meet the full demand based upon years of service, that each 
claimant will receive his pro rata share of such amount as can 
be paid from the fund. It appears that the Annual Conference 
is under no obligation to place in this fund any amount except 
that which comes from The Book Concern, the Chartered Fund, 
and special bequests designated as for this fund. 

Paragraph 317 places in the “Annual Conference Special 
Fund” all funds at the disposal of the Annual Conference to the 
extent that shall be determined by the Annual Conference, 
except that which in Paragraph 316 is set aside in a mandatory 
way for the Annuity Fund, which special fund is to be distri¬ 
buted upon the basis of special need. 

Our conclusions are: 

1. The preacher is continuously entitled to a comfortable sup¬ 
port, but can only have such an amount as funds provided will 
permit the Annual Conference to distribute. 

2. That distribution, based upon years of service, can be 
made from the Annuity Fund only and such pro rata share as 
the amount in the fund will permit. Necessity has no con¬ 
sideration in the distribution of this fund. A lack of suffi¬ 
cient funds to give to each claimant the full amount that years 
of service would entitle cannot compel or warrant the placing in 
this fund of any amount beyond the judgment of the Annual 
Conference as to what can be spared from the Special Fund. 

3. If the Annual Conference desires to provide first for its 
necessitous cases, it must do this by retaining in the Special 
Fund an amount sufficient for this purpose. 

4. If a claimant has received from the Annuity Fund an 
amount too small for a comfortable support, this can be sup¬ 
plemented from the Special Fund. 

5. In the absence of action on the part of the Rock River 
Annual Conference respecting the division of the Special Fund, 
the decision of the presiding Bishop is not in conflict with the 
several Paragraphs in the Discipline respecting the distribution 
of funds to Conference Claimants, and therefore the appeal of 
the appellant, Rev. William J. Libberton, is denied. 

Presented and not adopted, by count vote of 191 ayes to 232 
noes, May 28. 24 _ 


1916 

The single report of the Committee on Judiciary which 
was not adopted in 1916 discussed a subject of the utmost 
doctrinal importance, and was given large consideration by 


Conference 

action 


Report of 
1916 


84 Journal, 1912, pp. 500, 501. 




Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


266 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

the General Conference. Following this, on motion of the 
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, “the matter was post¬ 
poned until the next session of the General Conference.” The 
following was the report: 

Report No. 19 

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DOCTRINAL QUESTION IN RITUAL 

Your Committee on Judiciary having carefully considered an 
appeal of W. H. Shipman, of the Des Moines Conference, from a 
ruling of the presiding Bishop, submits the following report. 

The record shows that W. H. Shipman, Des Moines Confer¬ 
ence, session of 1912, reported that in receiving members into 
the Church in full connection, he had intentionally omitted to 
propound the question in the Ritual: “Do you believe in the 
doctrines of the Holy Scriptures as set forth in the Articles of 
Religion of the Methodist Episcopal Church ?” on the ground 
that the question is unconstitutional. The Conference, having 
voted to request the Bishop to rule on the question, he rendered 
the following decision: 

“The ruling is, that pending any decision as to the constitu¬ 
tionality of the question, every pastor is under legal obligation 
to ask each candidate for full membership the question, ‘Do 
you believe in the Doctrines of the Holy Scriptures as set forth 
in the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Episcopal Church ?’ ” 
It seems to have been clearly understood in the Conference 
that the purpose of the appellant was to secure a decision on the 
constitutionality of the requirement, and the form of the 
Bishop’s ruling indicates that he so understood it. The point 
ruled upon by the Bishop is inmaterial to the issue. He doubt¬ 
less intentionally avoided a ruling on the grave constitutional 
question involved, and by the use of the phrase “pending any 
decision as to the constitutionality of the question” has by im¬ 
plication become in some sense a party to the appeal. 

The Constitution is the supreme law, and any legislation 
contrary to it is void. Obedience to the Constitution must take 
precedence of obedience to any statute. The Bishop was there¬ 
fore in error, if his decision implies that any minister or mem¬ 
ber is obliged to obey an unconstitutional order of the General 
Conference. The material question is therefore that propounded 
to the Bishop, but not directly answered by him, namely, the 
constitutionality of the interrogation in the reception of mem¬ 
bers: “Do you believe in the Doctrines of the Holy Scriptures 
as set forth in the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Episco¬ 
pal Church?” In other words, has the General Conference the 
power under the Constitution of the Church to establish doc¬ 
trinal standards for admission into the membership of the 
Church ? or, does it have power to make any other conditions of 
membership than those found in the Constitution itself? 


REPORTS NOT ADOPTED 


267 


The Constitution of the Church says: (Paragraph 46) “The 
General Conference shall have full power to make rules and 
regulations for the Church under the following limitations and 
restrictions:” Among the six Restrictive Rules which follow 
are the first and fourth, which read as follows: 

Section 1. The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, 
nor change our Articles of Religion, nor establish any new 
standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing 
and established standards of doctrine. 

Section 4. The General Conference shall not revoke nor 
change the General Rules of our Church. 

The question whose constitutionality is challenged by the 
appellant is a part of Paragraph 501 of the Discipline, Form 
II, which was enacted by the General Conference of 1864. (See 
Journal, May 12, 1864.) 

The series of questions for reception into the Church in full 
membership is introduced by the words: “Then, addressing the 
applicants for admission, the minister shall say:” 

The word “shall,” deprives the minister of discretion, and 
being therefore mandatory does, in fact, prescribe a doctrinal 
test for admission into the membership of the Church. Has the 
General Conference such power under the Constitution? 

The Constitution of the Church does with great precision of 
definition deprive the General Conference of the power to 
establish a doctrinal test for admission into the Church. The 
Articles of Religion were made a part of the Constitution in 
1901. In nearly all organizations consent to the Constitution is 
required as a condition of membership, and it would seem rea¬ 
sonable for the General Conference, whose legislative power is 
unlimited, except as to the Constitution, to require such consent, 
unless the Constitution itself limits that power. It does, in 
fact, distinctly limit that power, by itself prescribing with 
precision and much detail the only condition required of those 
seeking admission. 

The General Rules were likewise made part of the Constitu¬ 
tion in 1901. The General Rules state, Paragraph 29, “There 
is only one condition previously required of those who desire ad¬ 
mission into these Societies— f a desire to flee from the wrath to 
come, and to be saved from their sins/” and then with great 
detail the Constitution proceeds to state the tests by which the 
reality of this desire may be known. All the tests proposed are 
tests not of theology but religion, not of doctrine but of life. 

In the interpretation of a Constitution, the intent of those 
who made it and the historic conditions out of which it grew 
shed light upon its meaning. 

The Articles of Religion, except the 23rd, were prepared 
by John Wesley from the thirty-nine Articles of Religion of 
the Anglican Church. The General Rules were written by John 


Finding of 
Committee 


Finding of 
Committee 


268 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

Wesley, assisted by his brother Charles, in 1743. Both became, 
after the Christmas Conference of 1784, doctrinal and Disci¬ 
plinary standards of the Church. The phrase, “established 
standards of doctrines,” has always been interpreted to include, 
besides the Articles of Religion, Wesley’s Notes on the New 
Testament, the so-called Large Minutes of Conference, and four 
volumes of Wesley’s Sermons. This appears in a letter addressed 
by Wesley to a Conference assembled at Baltimore, May 20, 
1784. But none of these standards are ever referred to, either 
by John Wesley or any contemporary minister, as conditions of 
membership in the Church. They are always and everywhere 
used as norms of teaching and therefore doctrinal requirements 
for the preachers. This is both etymologically and in reason the 
true function of doctrine. This is the proper place to guard the 
orthodoxy of the Church. But, while the founder of Methodism 
was thus very scrupulous in this insistence on the doctrinal 
purity of the early Methodist preaching, he was exceedingly 
liberal as to the requirements for membership. Abel Stevens’ 
History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Yol. II, pages 216, 
217: 

“Of few things connected with Methodism does Wesley speak 
oftener or with more devout gratulation than of its doctrinal 
liberality. ‘One circumstance,’ he says, ‘is quite peculiar to the 
people called Methodists; that is, the terms upon which any 
person may be admitted to their Society. They do not impose, 
in order to their admission, any opinion whatever. Let them 
hold particular or general redemption, absolute or conditional 
decrees. . . . They think, and let think. One condition, and 
one only, is required—a real desire to save their souls. Where 
this is, it is enough; they desire no more; they lay stress upon 
nothing else; they ask only, ‘Is thy heart herein as my heart? 
If so, give me thy hand.’ ‘Is there,’ he adds, ‘any other Society 
in Great Britain or Ireland that is so far removed from bigotry ? 
that is so truly of a catholic spirit ? So ready to admit all seri¬ 
ous persons without distinction? Where is there such another 
Society in Europe ? In the habitable world ? I know none. Let 
any man show me if he can. Till then let no one talk of the 
bigotry of the Methodists.’ When in his eighty-fifth year, 
preaching at Glasgow, he wrote: ‘I subjoined a short account 
of Methodism, particularly insisting on this circumstance— 
There is no other religious Society under heaven which requires 
nothing of men, in order to their admission into it, but a desire 
to save their souls. Look around you; you cannot be admitted 
into the Church or Society of Quakers, the Presbyterians, Ana¬ 
baptists, or any others, unless you hold the same opinions with 
them, and adhere to the same mode of worship. The Meth¬ 
odists alone do not insist on your holding this or that opinion. 
. . . Now, I do not know any other religious Society, either 


REPORTS NOT ADOPTED 


269 


ancient or modern, wherein such liberty of conscience is allowed, 
or has been allowed since the age of the apostles. Herein is 
our glorying, and a glorying peculiar to us. What Society 
shares it with us ?* The possible results of such liberality were 
once discussed in Conference. Wesley conclusively determined 
the debate by remarking: T have no more right to object to a 
man for holding a different opinion from me than I have to 
differ with a man because he wears a wig and I wear my own 
hair; but, if he takes his wig off and begins to shake powder in 
my eyes, I shall consider it my duty to get quit of him as soon 
as possible/ ‘Is a man/ he writes, ‘a believer in Jesus Christ, 
and is his life suitable to his profession ? are not only the main 
but are the only inquiries I make, in order to his admission 
into our Society/ ** 

Stevens further says, ibid., Yol. II, page 218: “The Articles 
of Religion and the General Rules are both parts of the organic 
or constitutional law of Methodism; but the General Rules pre¬ 
scribe the ‘only condition* of membership, without allusion to 
the Articles/* 

In the Discipline of the Church until 1840 there is no trace 
of any doctrinal test for admission into the Church. In the 
Discipline of that year, pages 90, 91, is found the following: 

“Let none be received into the Church until they are recom¬ 
mended by a leader with whom they have met at least six months 
on trial, and have been baptized, and shall on examination by the 
minister of the charge, before the church, give a satisfactory 
assurance both of the correctness of their faith and their willing¬ 
ness to observe and keep the rules of the Church. Nevertheless, 
if a member in good standing in any other orthodox Church shall 
desire to unite with us, such applicant may, by giving satis¬ 
factory answers to the usual inquiries, be received into full 
fellowship/* 

The phrase “correctness of their faith** in this quotation 
probably means no more than was meant by Wesley in his ques¬ 
tion, “Is a man a believer in Jesus Christ?** No doctrinal 
test is implied in such a question. It is simply the Protestant 
position that man is not saved by acquiescence in a verbal 
formula but by trust in a Living Person. There was therefore 
no doctrinal test of membership in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church until the General Conference of 1864 enacted the ques¬ 
tion whose constitutionality is now challenged. 

The question: “Do you believe in the Doctrines of the Holy 
Scriptures as set forth in the Articles of Religion of the Meth¬ 
odist Episcopal Church?** by its very form suggests a doubt as 
to its constitutionality. 

Bishop Cooke, in his History of the Ritual , page 232, re¬ 
marks : “The form of the question is very awkward, for it seems 
as if the Scriptures were to be believed through the Articles 


Finding of 
Committee 


270 BEPOETS OF THE JUDICIABY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


interpreting them, whereas the real proposition must be 
whether the teachings of the Articles are the teachings of the 
Scriptures.” 

The question in this form can only be construed as elevating 
the doctrines of the Church into dogmas, which is simply the 
position of the Roman Church, which makes the Church the 
only valid interpreter of Scripture; it forbids its members to 
find anything in the Bible which the Church has not declared as 
dogma. Moreover, if the object of the question is to secure assent 
to the doctrines of Methodism, it is fatally defective. The 
Articles of Religion do not contain, even by remote implication, 
those teachings which are the very essence of Methodism. They 
are silent on the witness of the Spirit and the doctrine of 
evangelical perfection. 

The purpose of the Articles of Religion never was to state 
positive truth in its fullness, but, rather, to raise necessary 
bulwarks against fatal error by definition against Arianism, 
Socinianism, Pelagianism, and Sacramentarianism; the Articles 
are a power of defense. But they do not and cannot give expres¬ 
sion to the affirmation of the religious life. It was doubtless 
for this reason that the fathers of Methodism did not enact their 
teaching into definite proposition, but chose as their doctrinal 
standards a mass of pious literature in which religious truth was 
stated in terms of life rather than of doctrine. Such a vast 
body of literature cannot be made a test of membership. It is a 
living fountain of religious edification whose use is to shape 
the public teaching of the Church rather than to be used as a 
condition of membership. It is an incidental confirmation of 
the conclusion reached in this argument that the learned com¬ 
mission on the revision of the Ritual, whose work is now before 
the Church for adoption, refused to retain this question in the 
form for the admission of members, but has substituted a spirit¬ 
ual rather than an intellectual confession of faith in this 
form: “Do you receive and profess the Christian faith as con¬ 
tained in the New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ?” 

We conclude: 

1. The minister in receiving members is under no obligation 
to use a form which is unconstitutional. 

2. The Constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church estab¬ 
lishes no doctrinal tests for Church membership. 

3. The only conditions of membership are those contained in 
the General Rules which are protected from change by the Gen¬ 
eral Conference by the Fourth Restrictive Rule. 

4. The General Conference of 1864 had no power to establish 
the condition of membership contained in the form for admis¬ 
sion of members, and it is therefore unconstitutional. The rul¬ 
ing of the Bishop in this case was therefore in error, and the 
appeal is sustained. 


REPORTS NOT ADOPTED 


271 


(Minority Report) 

The record of the Journal for May 27, 1916 (p. 443), is to 
the effect that “G. H. Bickley presented a minority report, 
and moved its substitution for the majority report.” A refer¬ 
ence to the Daily Christian Advocate for May 29, 1916 (p. 491), 
shows that the speaker stated his disagreement with the majority 
report only in a verbal address. For this reason his protest 
cannot be printed as a formal minority report. 

Subject postponed till the next General Conference. 25 

Repoet No. 22 

[As elsewhere stated (p. 209), this report is neither found in 
the Journal nor the Daily Christian Advocate for 1916. For 
the purpose of harmony, it is however retained in the enumera¬ 
tion.] _ 


1920 

Postponement from the previous General Conference again 
brought forward for consideration the subject of the doc¬ 
trinal question in the Ritual. Neither the majority nor the 
minority report, nor the separate concurring opinion, was 
adopted. The full text is as follows: 

Repokt No. 6 

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DOCTKINAL QUESTION IN RITUAL 

The Judiciary Committee has had referred to it an appeal 
of W. H. Shipman, of the Des Moines Conference, from a ruling 
of the presiding Bishop. The Bishop was requested to rule on 
the constitutionality of the question required to be asked of 
candidates for admission into Church membership which reads 
as follows: “Do you believe in the Doctrines of the Holy Scrip¬ 
tures as set forth in the Articles of Religion of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church ?” and which must be answered “I do.” 
(.Discipline 1916, p. 397.) The Bishop did not rule that the 
legislation thus challenged was either constitutional or uncon¬ 
stitutional, although we think it was his duty to have done so. 
He contented himself by ruling that pending any decision as 
to the constitutionality of the matter objected to every pastor 
is under legal obligation to ask each candidate for full member¬ 
ship the question objected to. The purpose of the appellant 
was plainly to secure a decision from which an appeal might be 
taken and the question of constitutionality determined. The 
appellant’s right to raise the constitutional question is one of 

45 Journal , 1916, p. 443. For text, see Journal , pp. 722-726, 


Conference 

action 


Question 

referred 




272 EEPOETS OF THE JUDICIAEY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


which he cannot be deprived by the failure of a Bishop to rule 
directly upon it. As the Bishop did not decide the legislation to 
be unconstitutional, we must treat his decision as holding for 
the purpose of the appeal that it was constitutional. 

The question, then, is presented as to the constitutionality of 
the provision found in Paragraph 514 of the Discipline of 1916, 
which is entitled “Form for Receiving Persons into the Church 
from Preparatory Membership.” 

The objection made is that the General Conference has, by the 
language in Paragraph 514 already quoted, prescribed a doc¬ 
trinal test for admission into membership in the Church, and 
that in doing so it has exceeded its constitutional powers. The 
legislation thus challenged was enacted by the General Con¬ 
ference of 1864. (See Journal , May 12, 1864.) 

It is unnecessary to say that under the Constitution of the 
Church the powers of a General Conference are not unlimited. 
It is also unnecessary to say that every General Conference is 
under solemn obligation scrupulously to regard the constitutional 
limitations imposed upon its powers. The Constitution being 
the supreme law, any legislation contrary thereto is void. 

The General Rules were written by John Wesley, assisted by 
his brother Charles, in 1743. The Articles of Religion, except 
the 23d, were prepared by John Wesley from the Thirty-nine 
Articles of Religion of the Church of England in 1784. Both 
became the standards of our Church after its organization at 
the Christmas Conference of 1784. The Articles of Religion 
established no test of Church membership. The General Rules 
established none except the “one condition” hereinafter referred 
to. Prior to 1812 the General Conference exercised full legisla¬ 
tive power over the Church. In 1808 the General Conference 
made provision for a delegated General Conference to assemble 
in 1812, and declared that that General Conference and all its 
successors should exercise the legislative power of the Church 
subject to the six Restrictive Rules, which therefore became 
constitutional in their character and have remained in force 
from that time to this, and, of course, were in force in 1864 
when the legislation now challenged was enacted. The Restric¬ 
tive Rules provided that “The General Conference shall not 
revoke nor change the General Rules of our Church” (Para¬ 
graph 46, Section 4.) The General Rules [and the Articles of 
Religion 26 ] were specifically adopted into the Constitution in 
1901, but this adoption of them in the Constitution did not 
add to the constitutional force which they at that time had. 
The General Conference cannot directly or indirectly alter the 
General Rules, or by statutory legislation destroy their mean¬ 
ing and force. 

26 These words appear in the Daily Christian Advocate , May 18, 1920, p. 
351, but not in the Journal. 



REPORTS NOT ADOPTED 


273 


The General Rules which the General Conference cannot 
change read in 1864 as they read now, as follows: “There is only 
one condition previously required of those who desire admission 
into these Societies—‘a desire to flee from the wrath to come 
and to be saved from their sins/ ” {Discipline 1916, Paragraph 
29, p. 35.) So that the question in the last analysis is whether 
the General Conference has changed the “only one condition” of 
membership specified in the General Rules, which is “a desire 
to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins,” 
by adding another condition when it required the ministers to 
ask of candidates for admission, “Do you believe in the Doctrines 
of the Holy Scriptures as set forth in the Articles of Religion of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church ?” and requiring the answer, “I 
do.” We have no doubt that by this legislation the General Con¬ 
ference has added to the one condition of membership as speci¬ 
fied in the General Rules, a second condition, which is a belief 
in the Articles of Religion. This Committee is therefore of the 
opinion that, in adopting this legislation herein complained of, 
the General Conference has changed the General Rules, that it 
was without power to do so, and that its action in doing so is 
a nullity. 

It is, of course, immaterial that in taking the action it did the 
General Conference did not put it in the form of an amendment 
of Paragraph 29 of the General Rules, but saw fit to put it in 
the Ritual. Though in the Ritual the effect in a legal and 
technical sense constituted as truly additional test of member¬ 
ship as though the General Conference had written it into 
Paragraph 29 of the General Rules. The addition was equally 
in excess of the powers of the General Conference, whether made 
to the General Rules directly or indirectly or through a provi¬ 
sion in the Ritual. To decide otherwise would be to destroy 
constitutional limitations or make them meaningless. 

It goes without saying that the General Conference of 1864 
in enacting the legislation now challenged had no intention of 
exceeding its powers. In exceeding its powers it did so through 
inadvertence due to the haste which attends necessarily upon 
legislation in a body like the General Conference. The objection 
of unconstitutionality is one entitled to the most careful con¬ 
sideration, and such consideration we have given it. 

It is a rule based on principle and supported by the great 
weight of authority in this country that, if the meaning of a 
constitutional provision is clear, the courts cannot resort to 
extrinsic matters to determine its meaning. Such matters cer¬ 
tainly cannot be used to contradict the plain meaning of the 
words used in the instrument. If, however, the meaning is 
doubtful, courts do look beyond the instrument into public writ¬ 
ings, the literature of the period, the history of the times, 
and into conditions then existing to aid them in discovering the 


Finding of 
Committee 


274 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Committee 


real intent and the true meaning of the provision being con¬ 
strued. It is, however, proper for us to remind the Conference 
that no doctrinal test for Church membership was laid down by 
John Wesley or by the founders of our Church. “One circum¬ 
stance,” wrote John Wesley, “is quite peculiar to the people 
called Methodists; that is, the terms upon which any person 
may be admitted to their Society. They do not impose, in 
order to their admission, any opinion whatever. . . . One 

condition, and one only, is required—a real desire to save their 
souls. Where this is, it is enough; they desire no more; they 
lay stress upon nothing else; they ask only, ‘Is thy heart herein 
as my heart ? If so, give me thy hand/ ” Then he asks where 
is there such another Society in the habitable world, and adds, “I 
know none. Let any man show me if he can.” Again he says: 
“There is no other religious Society under heaven which re¬ 
quires nothing of men, in order to their admission into it, but 
a desire to save their souls. Look around you; you cannot be 
admitted into the Church or Society of Quakers, the Presby¬ 
terians, Anabaptists, or any others, unless you hold the same 
opinions with them, and adhere to the same mode of worship. 
The Methodists alone do not insist on your holding this or 
that opinion. Now I do not know any other religious Society, 
either ancient or modern, wherein such liberty of conscience is 
allowed, or has been allowed since the age of the apostles. 
Herein is our glorying, and a glorying peculiar to us. What 
Society shares it with us?” (See Abel Stevens* History of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, Yol. II, pages 216, 217.) 

A careful examination shows that no doctrinal test of mem¬ 
bership was established until the General Conference of 1864 
enacted the legislation now under review. A provision was in¬ 
serted in the Discipline of 1840, which declared that none were 
to be received into the Church until they had been examined by 
the minister in charge and had given a satisfactory assurance 
‘both as to the correctness of their faith, and their willingness 
to observe and keep the rules of the Church.” That provision 
did not undertake to prescribe what should be regarded as 
‘satisfactory assurances,” and did not define in what “the cor¬ 
rectness of their faith” should consist. The provision was re¬ 
garded as simply administrative in its nature, and it was left 
to the discretion of the individual pastor, if he were not satis¬ 
fied,. to give to the candidate further religious instruction and 
receive from him further assurances. In his History of Meth¬ 
odism Abel Stevens, a distinguished authority, commenting upon 
the provision enacted in 1840 above cited, states that “if the 
rule amounts to more than this, it would probably be pro¬ 
nounced, by good judges of Methodist law, incompatible with 
^ sages and g enera l system of Methodism, an oversight of 
the General Conference which enacted it, and contrary to the 


REPORTS NOT ADOPTED 


275 


General Rules as guarded by the Restrictive Rules.” (Stevens’ 
History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Yol. II, p. 218, 
note 11.) If this be so as to the legislation of 1840, a fortiori 
the legislation of 1864 now under consideration is unconstitu¬ 
tional and void. 

We think it clearly appears from what has been said that the 
author of the General Rules, John Wesley, intended that no doc¬ 
trinal test should be established for admission into the Methodist 
Societies. It is equally clear that the founders of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in 1784 in accepting the General Rules must 
have accepted them with a like intent, all the more clearly evi¬ 
denced by the historic fact that for eighty years thereafter no 
attempt was made to establish a doctrinal test and to create a 
second condition of membership in the place of the one condition 
laid down in the General Rules and which it was provided in 
the Constitution of 1808 that no General Conference should have 
the power to change. It seems to the majority of this Com¬ 
mittee perfectly plain what the intention was as respects the 
question now under consideration. 

In conclusion we beg to remind the General Conference that 
the question submitted to the Judiciary Committee is one of 
law and nothing else. It is beyond our province, as it is beyond 
the province of the General Conference itself in deciding this 
matter, that we should be concerned with the wisdom of the 
constitutional restriction imposed, or with the wisdom or the 
expediency of the legislation enacted in 1864. There is but one 
question now to be decided and that is the question of power. 
That and that alone is now before us. In deciding that ques¬ 
tion we have reached the following conclusions: 

1. The minister in receiving members into the Church is 
under no obligation to use a form which is unconstitutional. 

2. The Constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church estab¬ 
lished no doctrinal tests for Church membership. 

3. The only condition of membership which it contains is 
that found in the General Rules, and it is protected from change 
by General Conference action by the Fourth Restrictive Rule. 

4. The General Conference of 1864 had no power to estab¬ 
lish the condition of membership contained in the form for 
admission of members, and it is therefore unconstitutional. 

5. The ruling of the Bishop in this case was therefore in 
error and the appeal is sustained. 

For concurrence: Henry Wade Rogers, Chairman; J. I. 
Bartholomew, Samuel C. Brown, Frank M. Clevenger, Henry C. 
Conrad, Earl R. Conder, F. G. B. Kemp, Oscar A. Knehans, 
John Marshall, William Nottingham, Charles A. Pollock, H. 
R. Snavely, Frank B. Smith. 

J. C. Nate concurs in the result, and files a separate con¬ 
curring opinion: 


Finding of 
Committee 


Finding of 
Committee 


276 REPOETS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

The question before the Judiciary Committee is one raised by 
the appeal of W. H. Shipman, of the Des Moines Conference, 
and is upon the constitutionality of the interrogation made of 
persons being received into full membership in the Church, as 
found in the Ritual (Discipline of 1916, Paragraph 514, Ques¬ 
tion 3), to wit: “Do you believe in the Doctrines of the Holy 
Scriptures as set forth in the Articles of Religion of the Meth¬ 
odist Episcopal Church ?” The contention of appellant is that 
the formulation of this question to be used in the connection 
stated transcended the powers of the General Conference of 
1864 which adopted the Ritual form in question. Such conten¬ 
tion is based upon the first and fourth Restrictive Rules of the 
Constitution of the Church (Discipline of 1916, Paragraph 46, 
Sections 1 and 4), as follows: (1) “The General Conference 
shall not revoke, alter, nor change our Articles of Religion, nor 
establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our 
present existing and established standards of doctrineand 
(4) “The General Conference shall not revoke nor change the 
General Rules of our Church.” These restrictions are taken, in 
the reasoning of appellant, in conjunction with the provision of 
the General Rules which states (Discipline of 1916, Paragraph 
29) : “There is only one condition previously required of those 
who desire admission into these Societies—‘a desire to flee from 
the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins.’ ” 

It is the further statement of the appellant before your Com¬ 
mittee that he was originally led to submit his appeal especially 
by a revulsion of feeling against submitting the ritualistic 
interrogation under consideration to persons being received into 
the Church in their earlier youth, and he asks your Committee 
to find, in effect: (1) That the Constitution of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church establishes no doctrinal tests for Church mem¬ 
bership; (2) That the only conditions of membership are those 
found in the General Rules, which are protected from change by 
the General Conference by the fourth Restrictive Rule; (3) 
That the General Conference of 1864 had no power to establish 
the condition of membership contained in the Ritual form here 
in question, and that, therefore; (4) the minister in receiving 
members is under no obligation to use that form. 

While it is to be adjudged that a strictly technical finding 
upon the question thus brought before us will fully sustain the 
appeal, it is submitted as a further judgment that such a finding 
ought to be reported for the approval of the General Confer¬ 
ence of the Church only in the light of several factors proper to 
be considered in connection with such decision. Among such 
factors are: 

(1) It reasonably appears that the General Conference of 
1864 made its Ritual forms in the light of the Constitution 
and Articles of Religion as a whole. And, while it is true that 


REPORTS NOT ADOPTED 


277 


the Conference was restricted in its power thus to do by the 
provisions of the Constitution itself, it equally appears that no 
violence is done by the Ritual form in question to the content 
and purposes of the Constitution and Articles of Religion taken 
in their entirety. 

(2) We believe, further, that consideration is to be given to 
the fact that the interrogation in question as to its constitu¬ 
tionality was placed among the Ritual forms of the Discipline of 
1864, and has since continued in the ritualistic portion of the 
Discipline of the Church. In the Ritual the various para¬ 
graphs, forms, and parts are not so much a determination or 
adjudication of the substance of doctrine of the several sacra¬ 
ments and administrations included as they are a pledge of 
loyalty to and due observance of such doctrines as elsewhere and 
otherwise determined. 

(3) It is quite beyond the province of civil courts to suggest, 
in analogous cases, any further bearings or implications flowing 
from a release of obligation afforded to an individual asserting 
his personal and independent rights and privileges. But we 
think it to be not beyond the province of a Committee, charged 
with the duty of adjudicating the issues arising in all the 
churches of its denomination, to note the possible danger of 
over-emphasis of the present decision as to its scope and implica¬ 
tions. The important Ritual form here in question has been 
in general and accepted use for more than half a century, and 
by virtue of such long and accepted use has fair claim to being 
an established standard of custom if not of law. And while 
the appellant is duly justified in not asking the Ritual interroga¬ 
tion as to belief in our doctrines as a condition of membership 
in our Church, a judicial decision upon his conscientious diffi¬ 
culty may not improperly be considered in its relation to the 
decades of growth and spiritual victory of the Church under com¬ 
mon and accepted use of the form; to the fact of the successful 
adaptation of the form by scores and hundreds of pastors to the 
conditions of receiving younger persons into the Church, or 
those for any reason not supposedly largely informed as to our 
doctrines; and even to the broad fact that, while Mr. Wesley 
did not insist upon the stated requirement for membership, he 
was nevertheless steadfast in the position that scrupulous respect 
for the body of its essential doctrines is vital in the welfare 
of the Church. 

It is therefore concluded that the appeal before your Com¬ 
mittee should be sustained, but that the question to which objec¬ 
tion is raised should be noted as doing no violence to the Consti¬ 
tution of the Church, including the Articles of Religion as a 
whole; as not improperly to be regarded in its ritualistic rather 
than in its strictly legal relations; and as deserving the due con- 


Finding of 
Committee 


278 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Conference 

action 


Finding of 
Minority 


sideration of its place and worth ensuing from the many years 
of its acceptable use in the Church. Joseph C. Nate. 27 

Majority report not adopted. May 25. 28 

(Minority Report) 

The minority of the Judiciary Committee, having under con¬ 
sideration the appeal of W. H. Shipman, dissents from the 
majority report for reasons herewith submitted: 

The question brought before the General Conference by this 
appeal is not whether it is advisable by legislation to alter the 
Ritual with respect to the questions to be asked candidates for 
full membership. The real question is whether it is uncon¬ 
stitutional to examine them as to their belief in the Holy Scrip¬ 
tures. Paragraph 29, in the General Rules, on which the ma¬ 
jority opinion rests its contention of unconstitutionality, relates, 
in the opinion of the minority report, to seekers of preparatory 
membership, and not to those seeking full membership. 

It is also contended by the minority opinion that it has always 
been the practice of the Church to require of applicants for full 
membership satisfactory evidence of their belief in the Holy 
Scriptures. 


HISTORICAL ARGUMENT 

Methodism was born not as a Church but as a movement. 
Many of its adherents were already members of Churches and 
so continued. This is why no formal creed was proposed for 
many years, and no sacraments administered. Wesley was de¬ 
termined not to break with the Church of England if he could 
avoid it. 

The first actual break came when the Methodist Episcopal 
Church was organized in 1784, as a result of the Revolutionary 
War. Up to that time the sacraments had not been administered 
among the American Methodists, but they had received them in 
the Episcopal Churches. (See Methodist Constitutions and 
Charters, pages 3-7.) As to the extent of this break with the 
past (see Ibid., page 11,) it says: “This being the beginning of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, it will be necessary to take par¬ 
ticular notice of those regulations or rules which were formed 
at that time, especially such as had not previously been prac¬ 
ticed by us.” 

In the Minutes of the Conference which organized the Church 
it is recorded, (Ibid., page 12) “We will form ourselves into an 
Episcopal Church under the direction of superintendents, Elders, 
Deacons, and helpers, according to the terms of ordination 

87 This opinion is not found in the Journal, but only in the Daily 
Christian Advocate for May 26, 1920, pp. 351, 352. 

28 Journal , 1920, pp. 386-420, 472-476. 



REPORTS NOT ADOPTED 


279 


annexed to our Liturgy and the form of Discipline set forth in 
these Minutes.” 

William Watters, our first American itinerant, and also one 
of the organizers of the Church, in a letter (Ibid., p. 13,) says: 
“On the 25th of December, 1784, our Conference met in Balti¬ 
more, to consider the plan of Church government which was 
recommended by Mr. Wesley. It was adopted and unanimously 
agreed to with great satisfaction, and we became, instead of a 
religious Society, a separate Church, under the name of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church/* 

Again from William Watters (Ibid., p. 15): 

“The Methodists in England and America formerly did not 
call themselves a particular Church, but a religious Society in 
connection with different Churches, but mostly with the Episco¬ 
pal Church/* 

These quotations are given to show that the practices of 
Wesley’s Societies in England, or even in America, have very 
little weight as proof of what the Methodist Episcopal Church 
adopted as its polity. It had hitherto been a simply organ¬ 
ized religious association, without creed or liturgy. It now 
became a Church with both, for Wesley at that time had sent 
over not only the Articles of Religion, but also a well-developed 
Ritual. (See Bishop Cooke’s History of the Ritual.) 

Hence it is not necessary to go back of this date to find the 
meaning given to the clause in the General Rules as to receiving 
new members. 

However, Porter, in his Compendium of Methodism, p. 30, 
shows that as early as 1738 Wesley had established a proba¬ 
tionary period of two months for all received into the Societies, 
and that they had to satisfy the whole congregation of their 
fitness before they could be received into full fellowship. He 
quotes the full plan of the organization of the Societies. 

The General Rules were not given until five years later; hence 
it is clear that the practice did not grow out of the Rules but 
the Rules out of the practice. This is an important point to 
remember (Porter, p. 37). 

Wesley often claimed that he patterned his Societies after 
the primitive Church, in which the system of receiving and train¬ 
ing new believers as catechumens, before receiving them into 
full fellowship, was general. The condition required for the 
enrollment as a catechumen was the same as that required by 
the General Rules of our Church, for Wesley ever had the prac¬ 
tice of the primitive Church before him—“a desire to flee from 
the wrath to come and to be saved from their sins” (Cooke’s 
History of the Ritual, p. 224). 

Also, both Wesley and his followers were familiar with the 
practice of the Church of England in putting its children into 
catechism classes before giving them confirmation as members 


Finding of 
Minority 


380 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Minority 


of the Church. There can be no reasonable doubt, from these 
and many other facts which could be cited, that the Rule of the 
“one condition for entrance into these Societies” refers to the 
entrance upon trial, as above described, and not to final ac¬ 
ceptance as full members. 

The important fact in this discussion, however, is not the 
practice of Wesley in England, but of the Methodists in America 
after they organized the Methodist Episcopal Church. That it 
has been the practice of the Church from that time to regard 
the Rule stated in Paragraph 29 as applying only to probationary 
membership we think can be abundantly proven, and that the 
proof is fatal to the contention of the majority report. 

The probationary system came into our Church along with 
the General Rules. In 1789 the period of probation was ex¬ 
tended from two to six months. (Porter, p. 443.) Speaking 
of this system he says: “If after this term of probation they 
have been baptized, and on examination it appears that they are 
Methodists in faith and are disposed to observe the rules of 
the Church, they are admitted to full membership. In being 
received on trial they profess ‘a desire to flee from the wrath 
to come/ They do not say they are Methodists and believe our 
doctrines and Discipline. . . . But, having been received into 
full connection, they stand in quite a different relation. They 
now profess to believe both our doctrine and Discipline and are 
governed by them.” 

He says again, p. 446: “Till 1840 our Discipline contained no 
exception to the rule requiring a probation. Persons coming 
to us from other denominations, however intelligent and pious, 
had to join on trial and graduate in due form.” 

Again, p. 445, he says: “No specific form of receiving proba¬ 
tioners into full connection has been maintained among us, 
further than to examine them before the Church as to their 
faith and willingness to observe our rules. This has now (1864) 
been provided for in our Ritual, etc.” 

Also Henry Wheeler, in his great work, The History and Ex¬ 
position of the Twenty-five Articles, says on this point (p. 10) : 
“Prior to 1864 candidates for full membership were examined 
by the pastor, and were required to give satisfactory assurances 
both of the correctness of their faith and their willingness to 
observe and keep the rules of the Church. The method of the 
examination was discretionary with the pastor, and the declara¬ 
tion of faith was general rather than specific.” 

Both these authorities show that the religious test for full 
membership did not begin with the Ritual established in 1864, 
of which complaint is made in the appeal under consideration, 
but was a long-established custom, dating from the organization 
of our Church. 

Mr. Wheeler, in his One Thousand Questions and Answers on 


REPORTS NOT ADOPTED 


281 


Methodist history and polity, says of the General Rules (p. 
82): “What are the General Rules? A concise statement for 
the regulation of Christian life and deportment, so general as to 
be applicable to all Methodist societies.” There is no hint in 
his discussion of the Rules that the Church ever considered the 
one in Paragraph 29 to have the authoritative position given 
it in the majority report, or any desire that it should be so 
construed. Even the quotations from Abel Stevens* History of 
Methodism, so much relied on in that report, do not state that 
the Rule in Paragraph 29 was made the standard of the Meth¬ 
odist Episcopal Church for the reception of members into full 
connection. Yet that use of the Rule is the only one which 
would give ground for the contention of the report as to the 
unconstitutionality of the use of the Ritual for that purpose. 

Bishop Merrill, in his Digest of Methodist Law, is very explicit 
in his statement on this point. On page 44 he says: “The 
second class of applicants for probation in the Church may 
be regarded as seekers or inquirers. The conditions on which 
they are to be received are few and simple. There is only one 
condition previously required of those who desire admission 
into these Societies—‘a desire to flee from the wrath to come and 
to be saved from their sins.* This is the only condition previ¬ 
ously required, and refers exclusively to admission on trial.” 

The minority believe that these historic quotations abundantly 
show that the Church never meant the provisions of the Rules 
in Paragraph 29 to stand as the “one condition” of reception 
into full membership, but only of admission into preparatory 
membership. Long before 1840 the Discipline contained the 
admonition: “Let none be received into the Church until they 
are recommended by a leader with whom they have met at least 
six months on trial, and have been baptized, and shall, on 
examination by the minister of the charge, before the Church, 
give satisfactory assurance both of the correctness of their 
faith and their willingness to observe and keep the rules of the 
church.” 

It will be seen by this quotation that the contention of the 
majority report would apply just as much to the custom and 
Ritual of administering baptism before receiving members into 
full connection as to the Ritual of which complaint is made. 
It contains requirements of confession of faith in the Apostles* 
Creed which would be also unconstitutional if the contention of 
the majority report is well founded. 

The far-reaching effect, disastrous to the highest degree to 
the spiritual power of the Church, if the contention of the ma¬ 
jority report is upheld, must be apparent to all. 

It would make of our Articles of Religion merely a set of 
recommended doctrines with no authority over the faith of the 
people, and any person, no matter whether he were Jew, Moham- 


Finding of 
Minority 


282 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Finding of 
Minority 


medan, pagan, could claim membership in the Church with im¬ 
punity. 

Surely, with all the historic proof of the jealousy with which 
Methodism has been guarded as to its doctrinal beliefs from the 
days of Wesley to the present, it cannot be that the Church 
ever meant to open its doors so unguardedly as the contention 
of the majority report claims. 

LEGAL ASPECT 

The “Articles of Religion” are as much a part of the Con¬ 
stitution as the General Rules. The Constitution must be 
interpreted as a whole and in accordance with its spirit and 
intent. Each part should, if possible, be given an interpreta¬ 
tion consistent with the rest. In Paragraph 5 of the Constitu¬ 
tion it is declared: 

“The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salva¬ 
tion ; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved 
thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be 
believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or neces¬ 
sary to salvation.” Therefore, by the Constitution, whatever is 
read in the Scriptures or may be proved thereby is required to 
be believed and is necessary to salvation. 

We think it cannot be reasonably argued that it is unconstitu¬ 
tional to require one who seeks full membership to give evi¬ 
dence of his assent to that which is in the Constitution. One 
seeking the privilege of full membership cannot claim the rights 
without assenting to the requirements of the basic compact of 
the Church he asks to enter. 

Paragraph 29, when read in its entirety and in connection 
with Paragraph 30 to 32 following, shows that it is founded on, 
and the “desire” therein required can exist only by reason of 
a belief in the Scriptures, which, though it may be feeble at 
first, is expected to grow and bring forth fruits. By Paragraph 
33 these rules “we are taught of God to observe, even in his 
written Word, which is the only rule, both of our faith and 
practice.” By necessary implication and by express statement 
belief in the written Word is made necessary. 

The legal presumption is that Paragraph 514 and each part of 
it is constitutional. It cannot be held to be unconstitutional 
unless clearly shown to be so. If the question to be asked con¬ 
cerning belief in the Scriptures is unconstitutional, then the 
question whether the candidate renews his baptismal covenant is 
also unconstitutional. 

The purpose of interpretation is to find out what was intended. 
Unreasonable results weigh strongly against an interpretation 
that will produce them. 

The minority believes that Paragraph 514 is constitutional. 


REPORTS NOT ADOPTED 


283 


George W. White, E. A. Morling, C. W. Lynch, E. J. Lockwood, 
L. L. Dennett. 

Not substituted for majority report, by a count vote of 359 
ayes to 375 noes. May 22. 29 

Most noteworthy among the papers submitted by the Com¬ 
mittee on Judiciary at the General Conference of 1920 was 
the present Report No. 6, with its accompanying Minority 
Report. Familiarly known as the “Shipman Appeal,” the 
matter had been postponed as Report No. 19 from the Gen¬ 
eral Conference of 1916. Never before had there been such 
challenge of the constitutionality of the question as to doc¬ 
trinal belief asked of candidates for admission into full mem¬ 
bership in the Church. The long and able debate on the 
subject, with the subsequent roll call covering several sessions, 
stands forth conspicuously upon the page. Though the 
minority report was not substituted for the main report, 
and though the latter failed of adoption, with its claim that 
the only condition of membership in the Methodist Episco¬ 
pal Church “is that found in the General Rules,” yet the 
issue was closely divided. Both the reports—as well as that 
of 1916—are now historic documents, and should here have 
their preservation. 

» Journal, 1920, pp. 386, 389, 476-481. 


Conference 

action 

Report 6, 1920 
















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































PART III 


RULINGS OF THE BOARD OF BISHOPS 
















Ill 


RULINGS OF THE BOARD OF BISHOPS 

A MONG the interpreters of Church law, in the interim 
of the General Conference, the Bishops have ever 
been considered as prominent. Frequent decisions 
on controverted questions have been required of them in 
the Annual and Judicial Conferences; and, to meet other 
conditions, inquiries as to the construction of the Discipline 
have been constantly submitted through the years for the 
episcopal judgment. Under the present economy of Meth¬ 
odism there exists no other high court of appeal in the 
interval of the General Conference. 

Force of the Episcopal Rulings.—The inquiry has more 
than once been raised as to the authority and value of these 
rulings by the Bishops. Yet within certain limits there can 
be no question as to such authority. Certain matters, for 
instance, are specifically referred to the Bishops by the Gen¬ 
eral Conference, and so far as these are concerned there can 
be no question of jurisdiction. Furthermore, all matters 
arising in Annual Conference administration, involving the 
interpretation of the Discipline and formally presented for 
the decision of the presiding Bishop, must be ruled upon; and 
in such cases this ruling stands, unless upon appeal it is 
reversed or modified by the ensuing General Conference. 
And, still further, in all cases of judicial procedure the 
formal decisions of the presiding Bishop must stand unless 
overruled by the Judicial or General Conference. In these 
three respects the authority of the episcopal rulings seems un¬ 
alterably established. 

Other Rulings Advisory.—There are, however, many ques¬ 
tions arising which are of another nature. These involve the 
action of local church boards and officers, and affect the 
administration of the local church; and they are matters in 

Note. —The Editors acknowledge the courtesy of Bishop L. B. Wilson, 
Secretary of the Board of Bishops, in furnishing the essential statements 
which are found in these prefatory pages ■ 

287 


Bishops as 
Interpreters 
of Law 


288 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Episcopal 

Opinion 


which the judgment of the Board of Bishops is not infre¬ 
quently desired and requested. Under ordinary circum¬ 
stances the Board is willing and ready to give its opinion 
in such cases, always, however, assuming that it cannot 
direct or control the other units in our ecclesiastical organ¬ 
izations in contravention of the expressed provisions of the 
Discipline . 

But there are, besides, other questions arising within the 
several General Boards or Committees of the Church for 
whose settlement no provision appears in the present statutory 
law of the Church. If any of these Boards should ask for an 
expression of episcopal opinion, the question at issue would 
in all probability have consideration, and the answer would 
be returned; but no authority is lodged with the Board of 
Bishops which would necessitate the acceptance of its judg¬ 
ment by the Board or Boards immediately concerned in the 
case. With the increasingly complex machinery of the 
Church, it would appear that the authority to review and 
adjudicate any such differences arising within or between 
the Boards of the Church should be somewhere lodged. 
Since, however, the General Conference up to the present has 
constituted no court of final resort, to serve ad interim, but 
has reserved to itself alone the function of such court, the 
decisions of the Board of Bishops in such instances must be 
advisory rather than authoritative. 

Rulings Now Approved.—For a long period of years the 
Board of Bishops at its formal sessions had formulated for 
their individual guidance different decisions upon contro¬ 
verted points. Realizing, however, that these rulings were 
simply advisory, except in matters distinctly and specifically 
covered by General Conference legislation, in 1908 the Board 
presented various of these decisions to the General Confer¬ 
ence for approval. Following that session—again in 1912, 
1916, and 1920—the Bishops quadrennially submitted other 
rulings for confirmation. These were first carefully passed 
upon by the Committee on Judiciary; the reports of that Com¬ 
mittee were later submitted to the General Conference; and 
the rulings approved by that body as a consequence now have 
all the authority of General Conference action, unless changed 
by a subsequent Conference. 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


289 


The complete tabulation of these episcopal rulings thus 
approved by the General Conferences of 1908-1920 inclusive 
will be found in the following pages: 

1908 

The total number of rulings acted upon by the General 
Conference of 1908 was forty-three. Their subjects were 
varied and important. The following is the list: 

Report No. 29 

RULINGS OF BOARD OF BISHOPS 

The Rulings of the Bishops, as submitted to the Committee 
on Judiciary by the Secretary of the Board of Bishops and 
hereto appended, are approved, with the exception of the one 
numbered "41," which we find to be in error. 

To the Judiciary Committee: 

Brethren : The following are Rulings on matters con¬ 
nected with the administration of the Bishops, and approved by 
the Board of Bishops in its sessions during the quadrennium, and 
referred to in the Episcopal Address. 

John M. Walden, Secretary . 

Validity of Certificate 

1. May, 1906. A member of our Church who takes a certifi¬ 
cate and unites with a church of another denomination thereby 
exhausts that certificate, hence cannot reenter our Church on that 
certificate ( Discipline , Paragraph 49, Section 2). 

Christian Science Society 

2. May, 1906. A pastor is not at liberty to give a letter of 
dismissal to a member who announces the purpose to join a 
Christian Science Society. 

Boundary Commissions Must Meet 

3. May, 1906. It would not be legal for Commissions ap¬ 
pointed to determine the boundaries of Annual Conferences to 
reach a conclusion by correspondence and without a formal 
meeting. 

Admission of Probationers 

4. May, 1906. An Annual Conference may not admit into 
full membership a member on trial “left without appointment 
to attend one of our schools,” even though the time thus spent 
be four years and the studies of the entire course be passed— 
Discipline , Paragraph 175, expressly stating “that the time thus 


Forty-three 

Rulings 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


290 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


spent in school shall not count on that required for trial in the 
Annual Conference.” 

Bishop in Charge of a Conference 

5. May, 1906. When for any reason a Conference is turned 
over ad interim to another Bishop, he has the entire administra¬ 
tion thereof until a successor is appointed at the next Bishops’ 
Conference. The Bishop who makes the appointments must 
have the right to superintend the work. 

Locating a Preacher 

6. May, 1906. The only law in the Discipline providing a 
method of locating a preacher without his consent is contained in 
Paragraph 228. 

Amenability of Deaconesses 

7. May, 1906. Every deaconess is in the jurisdiction of the 
Annual Conference where she labors, even though she be a mem¬ 
ber of a Home within the bounds of another Conference ( Disci¬ 
pline , Paragraph 209). 

Suspension May Not Be Arrested 

8. May, 1906. When a member of Conference whose case 
was referred to the Presiding Elder for investigation is sus¬ 
pended from the ministry by a duly appointed Committee until 
the next session of the Annual Conference, a withdrawal there¬ 
after of the charges by the complainant does not make it legal 
for the Presiding Elder to reopen the case. The suspension must 
hold until the Annual Conference convenes. 

No Second Trial on Same Charges 

9. May, 1906. A member of the Church who has been tried 
on charges which were not sustained, cannot be tried a second 
time on the same charges. 

Pastor as Sunday School Superintendent 

10. May, 1906. We are of opinion that there is no Disci¬ 
plinary objection to the election of a pastor as Sunday School 
superintendent. 

Renomination of Sunday School Superintendent 

11. May, 1906. A person duly nominated by the Sunday 
School Board as superintendent and refused confirmation by 
the Quarterly Conference is eligible to nomination at any subse¬ 
quent meeting of the Sunday School Board, and to confirmation 
by the next Quarterly Conference thereafter. 

Trine Baptism 

12. May, 1906. There is no law in our Discipline on the 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


291 


subject of trine baptism; but, because of its association with 
high ritualistic practices, we advise that it be not practiced 
among us, especially where the form used is immersion. 

Quarterly Conference Relation of Preacher in Detached 
Service 

13. October, 1906. The Quarterly Conference relation of a 
preacher in detached service, such as chaplain, etc., may be 
changed, without his consent, only by the presiding Bishop of 
his Annual Conference ( Discipline, Paragraph 173, Section 4). 

Deaconess Work in a Mission 

14. October, 1906. “The foregoing,” in Discipline, Para¬ 
graph 212, refers to the whole Chapter; hence a Mission may 
elect a Deaconess Board which will have the authority given in 
Discipline, Paragraph 207, which authority should be recog¬ 
nized. 

Trial Necessary to Location 

15. October, 1906. After a Conference has, under Paragraph 
228 of the Discipline, requested one of its members to locate, 
whether he be present or absent at the next session he can only 
be located by a formal trial and conviction. 

Legality of Judiciary Proceedings 

16. October, 1906. When an appeal has been taken to a 
Judicial Conference, it is for that Judicial Conference to pro¬ 
nounce upon the questions both of law and fact arising from 
the minutes and documents coming to it from the Annual Con¬ 
ference. 

Probationers Not Conference Claimants 

17. October, 1906. The Conference Stewards are not au¬ 
thorized to grant help from the Conference Claimant Fund to 
preachers on trial, nor to the widows of preachers on trial. 

Collections of Woman's Missionary Societies 

18. October, 1906. Each pastor must decide for himself what 
are the regular services of the Church, referred to in Discipline, 
Paragraph 375, Section 4, and what are the meetings properly 
convened under Section 5 of same paragraph. 

The Professor Mitchell Case 

19. October, 1905. To a request for a copy of the complaints 
made to the Bishops against Professor H. G. Mitchell, for use 
in an investigation ordered by his Annual Conference, the fol¬ 
lowing answer was given: 


Rulings 

submitted 

1908 


292 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1908 


“The Board of Bishops has no information to give concern¬ 
ing the case, and under the limitations of their authority can¬ 
not be participants, directly or indirectly, in any formal in¬ 
vestigation ordered by an Annual Conference. There is no 
objection to the answer already returned by our Secretary.” 

Removal of Class Leader 

20. October, 1906. There is no power lodged in the local 
church to prevent the removal of a class leader by the pastor 
{Discipline, Paragraph 59). 

Relation of Bishop or Superintendent to Woman's Rome 
Missionary Work 

21. October, 1906. (1) Under the provisions of the Disci¬ 

pline there is no direct relation of the workers or the work of 
the Woman’s Home Missionary Society to a Mission, its Super¬ 
intendent, or presiding Bishop. The only restriction in the 
administration of such workers or work is that stated in Disci¬ 
pline, Paragraph 375, Section 1. 

(2) The above is modified by the provision of the Discipline 
respecting deaconesses and deaconess work as specifically stated 
in the Chapter relating to that subject, particularly Paragraph 
207. 

Fraternity 

22. May, 1906. At the Bishops’ Conference, held in Evanston, 
Illinois, the following resolution from the Commission on Fed¬ 
eration was presented: 

“Resolved, That where there are churches of the two branches 
of Episcopal Methodism here represented, and recommendations 
shall have been made by joint committees from the Confer¬ 
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, covering said terri¬ 
tory, and a majority of the membership of each of said churches 
shall have expressed a desire for union, such union may be 
consummated by the approval of the Bishop of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church and the Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, having episcopal supervision of said Confer¬ 
ences.” 

This was referred to the Committee on General Reference, 
composed of seven Bishops, for consideration, which reported 
as follows: 

“The foregoing matter having been presented to the Com¬ 
mittee of General Reference, that Committee begs to recom¬ 
mend a favorable expression of opinion concerning the prin¬ 
ciple herein presented.” 

This report was received and adopted by the Board of Bishops. 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


293 


Joint Occupation of Cities 

23. May, 1907. We are, as ever, desirous of maintaining 
cordial relations with our brethren of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, wherever our works intermingle, as well as else¬ 
where. In order to do this we recommend: 

First, that in smaller places where both denominations are 
struggling to sustain themselves, and where one Methodist 
church would be sufficient, effort should be made to reach an 
amicable arrangement by which one of the denominations shall 
retire. 

Second, that in the larger places and cities which we deem 
it necessary to enter, where the Church, South, is operating, we 
will seek to locate in sections not already provided for, and, 
so far as in us lies, work in Christian harmony with all who 
serve the Lord. 

Certificate in Lieu of Examination 

24. May, 1907. It is the judgment of the Bishops that the 
phrase, “all biblical and theological studies,” which occurs in 
Appendix, Paragraph 63, Section 4, of the Discipline, includes 
Butler's Analogy of Religion and Fisher's Grounds of Theistic 
and Christian Belief. 


Re-examinations 

25. May, 1907. It being the province of the Annual Con¬ 
ference to determine whether the examinations of under¬ 
graduates are satisfactory, it may authorize the re-examination 
of any who have failed to pass at a previous examination during 
the year. 

Quarterly Conference on Pastoral Supply 

26. May, 1907. The Bishops think that it is not desirable 
that the Quarterly Conference take formal action on the ques¬ 
tion of pastoral supply at the ensuing Annual Conference, but 
we know of nothing, either in the law or usage of the Church, 
which forbids a Presiding Elder to entertain a motion on this 
subject. 

Bishops’ Consent to Transfer 

27. May, 1907. (1) We will call the attention of our Pre¬ 

siding Elders to the fact that the employment, as a pastoral sup¬ 
ply, of an effective member of an Annual Conference by the 
Presiding Elder of another Conference is absolutely illegal, and 
the Presiding Elder so offending is open to the charge of mal¬ 
administration. Such an illegal supply cannot exercise any 
pastoral functions, such as receiving or giving Church letters 
or presiding at any official meetings, and he remains amenable 


Rulings 

submitted 

1908 


294 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1908 


for desertion of his work to his own Conference, under the pro¬ 
visions of the Discipline, Paragraphs 162, 227. 

(2) No Presiding Elder may excuse a pastor from the work 
to which he has been assigned by the Bishop, except by chang¬ 
ing him to another charge, within the same District, under the 
provisions and limitations of Paragraph 190, Section 3, of the 
Discipline. 

(3) The consent of the Bishops concerned to a change of a 
pastor to work within another Conference is de facto a transfer, 
and the certificate of transfer should be promptly issued. 

(4) Until his own Conference, after due examination, has 
passed the character of the effective member who has left his 
work to serve as a supply within another Conference, the Bishops 
are not at liberty to transfer him. 

(5) The consent of Elders, in cases above mentioned, is not 
sufficient to justify a man’s leaving the work to which he has 
been appointed. He must await information from his Bishop. 

Joint Agreement of Bishops 

28. November, 1892. (1) In all cases, transfers will only 

be made by joint agreement of the Bishops having charge of 
both Conferences. 

May, 1907. (2) We are not at liberty to transfer a preacher 

to any Conference without having first obtained the direct con¬ 
sent, either oral or written, of the Bishop having charge of the 
Conference to which the proposed transfer is to be made. 

Separation of Pastoral Charges After Being United 

29. May, 1907. Where a Bishop has united two or more pas¬ 
toral charges, the Bishop in charge has authority to separate, 
as he had authority to unite, the original constituents. 

Sunday School Board 

30. May, 1907. (1) By the form for the organization of 

the Sunday School Board, found in Appendix, Paragraph 58 
of the Discipline, the superintendent of the Sunday School is 
authorized to call a special meeting of the Board. 

(2) The pastor is ex officio chairman, and is to preside at 
all meetings of the Board at which he is present. If the pastor 
is absent, and no person has been appointed by him to pre¬ 
side, the Board may elect a temporary chairman. 

(3) No teacher can be dismissed, except by a two-thirds vote 
of the Board ( Discipline, Paragraph 347, Section 4). 

(4) The Quarterly Conference has authority to supervise 
the Sunday School, and to hear and adjudge complaints against 
its management and against the action of the Sunday School 
Board or any of its officers. 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


295 


Bishops’ Relation to Memorials 

31. May, 1907. We would advise that, except when changes 
of the Constitution are proposed in specific terms, it is not 
customary for the Bishops to present memorials adopted by one 
Conference for the consideration and action of other Confer¬ 
ences. We request the Secretary of our Board to suggest to the 
Secretary of any Conference taking such action that the me¬ 
morial be transmitted directly to the Secretaries of the other 
Conferences. 

General Committee of Board of Education, etc . 

32. May, 1907. It is the opinion of the Bishops that no 
legal provision exists for a General Committee on “Education, 
Freedmen's Aid, and Sunday Schools,” and that no meeting of 
a General Committee of this Board should be planned or held 
this year. 

Ladies' Aid Societies 

33. May, 1907. Only Ladies* Aid Societies organized under 
Paragraph 350 of the Discipline are entitled to representation 
in the Quarterly Conference. 

Eligibility of Located Preacher 

34. November, 1907. In our judgment a member of an An¬ 
nual Conference who has received a located relation is not 
eligible to election as a lay delegate to the General Confer¬ 
ence until he has been five years in this located relation; but the 
decision of this question is with the General Conference. 

Bishops and Examinations 

35. November, 1907. The Bishops, as a body, have no juris¬ 
diction over the action of an Annual Conference in the matter 
of examinations. 

Effect of a Transfer 

36. November, 1907. When a preacher has been lawfully 
transferred from an Annual Conference before charges are pre¬ 
ferred against him in that Conference, he is beyond its juris¬ 
diction, and any judicial action taken by it in the case there¬ 
after is null and void. 

Parsonage Property, Trustees, etc . 

37. November, 1907. (1) The Discipline does not specifically 
provide for a separate Board of Trustees for parsonage prop¬ 
erty, but where on a circuit the different churches have a prop¬ 
erty right in the parsonage, the intimations of the Discipline 


Rulings 

submitted 

1908 


896 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1908 


are that a distinct Board of Trustees should he constituted from 
the Trustees in the circuit, in order that the rights of all the 
churches which have contributed to the parsonage shall be 
conserved. 

(2) The Trustees of parsonage property are members of the 
Quarterly Conference only by virtue of their being Trustees of 
the church property. 

Sale of Parsonage Property 

38. November, 1907. A trust clause in a deed to property 
requiring it to be maintained as a parsonage for the use of 
Methodist preachers would be no Disciplinary bar to its sale 
and conveyance, provided that the proceeds of the sale shall be 
duly reinvested in parsonage property for the benefit of the 
same Society. 


Conveyance of Parsonage Property 

39. November, 1907. Apart from special or corporate provi¬ 
sions it is expedient that the regularly chosen Trustees of the 
church property execute the conveyance of the parsonage prop¬ 
erty, or at least join in the transfer thereof, since the Discipline 
does not provide for separate Boards of Trustees for parsonage 
property. 

Jurisdiction of Joint Commission 

40. November, 1907. A Joint Commission on Federation ap¬ 
pointed by an Annual Conference has no jurisdiction within a 
Mission or Mission Conference, although the territory be ad¬ 
joining. 

Vacancies in Book Committee 

41. November, 1907. A person elected to fill a vacancy in a 
hold-over term in the Book Committee is elected to serve the 
remainder of the entire term. 

[Disapproved, as the General Conference of 1904 decided 
otherwise.] 

President of Ladies ’ Aid Society 

42. November, 1907. A person not a member of the Meth¬ 
odist Episcopal Church may be elected president of the Ladies’ 
Aid Society and confirmed as such by the Quarterly Conference; 
but. she cannot be “approved by it for membership therein” 
(Discipline, Paragraph 350, Section 2). 

Moneys of Ladies* Aid Societies 

43. November, 1907. A Ladies’ Aid Society has no right, 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


297 


without the sanction of the Quarterly Conference, to withhold 
money received for the support of the church. 

Report of Committee on Judiciary received and entered on 
Journal, June l. 1 Recorded. 2 


1912 

Sixty-eight rulings were passed upon by the General Con¬ 
ference of 1912. Their subjects cover a wide range of in¬ 
terest. In detail they were as follows: 

Report No. 25 

RULINGS OF BOARD OF BISHOPS 

Your Committee on Judiciary respectfully reports that the 
rulings of the Bishops as submitted to said Committee by the 
Secretary of the Board of Bishops, and referred to your Com¬ 
mittee by the General Conference, and hereto appended, are 
approved with the exception of the rulings hereinafter men¬ 
tioned : 

Commission on Boundaries (Rulings 23, 24). 

44. November, 1908. A Mission has no authority under the 
law of the Church ( Discipline, If 451) to appoint a Commission 
to act jointly with the Commission of an Annual Conference to 
determine the boundary line between said Conference and said 
Mission. 

Membership Gained by Fraud (Ruling 52). 

45. November, 1908. (1) Whenever a minister is received 

into its membership by an Annual Conference he retains that 
membership until he has been ended by due process of law or 
other Disciplinary process. 

(2) If, after a minister has been received into its member¬ 
ship by an Annual Conference, there be allegation of fraud con¬ 
nected with his admission, the validity of his membership must 
be judicially determined. 

Secretary's Custody of Parchments (Ruling 76). 

46. November, 1908. The Secretary of an Annual Conference 
is its official servant and cannot give up Credentials of Ordina- 

!Upon the presentation of this report the motion was made that it be 
received and entered on the Journal. Whereupon the question was asked 
if such entry would “make these rulings in any sense law.” The further 
objection was offered that the General Conference did not wish to pass 
upon them individually, “not knowing what they are.” After discussion, 
the original motion prevailed. But the whole trend of the debate indicates 
that the action taken came short of an adoption of the report. (See Daily 
Christian Advocate , June 1, 1908, p. 6.) 

2 Journalj 1908, pp. 446, 483-491. 


Conference 

action 


Sixty-eight 

Rulings 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 




898 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1912 


tion placed in his custody after the expulsion of a minister 
(either traveling or local) until ordered so to do by the Annual 
Conference. 

Bishops and Pastoral Supply (Ruling 113, Revised). 

47. November, 1908. No Bishop shall be at liberty to make 
suggestions for the pastoral supply of a church not at the 
time under his jurisdiction, except it be done through the Bishop 
having episcopal charge of such church. 

Investigation of Supernumerary or Superannuated Preachers 
(Rulings 205-207). 

48. November, 1908. “A Supernumerary or Retired minister 
residing without the bounds of his own Conference” in case of 
an investigation is subject to the authority of the District Super¬ 
intendent of the District within which he resides, to the extent 
of the preliminary investigation provided for in the Discipline, 
Paragraph 232, Sections 1 and 4, and the records of the investi¬ 
gation are to be transmitted to his own Conference. 

Minister Living Apart From His Wife 

49. November, 1908. Every minister whose character has 
been passed by his Annual Conference is entitled to an appoint¬ 
ment by the Bishop presiding; but, in case the minister be liv¬ 
ing apart from his wife by his own volition or consent, it is 
highly inexpedient to appoint him to the position of District 
Superintendent, or to give him any other important or con¬ 
spicuous appointment. 

Appointment of Missionaries (Ruling 295). 

50. November, 1908. (1) The power of appointment which 

is lodged in the episcopacy applies to all missionaries who are 
ministers and no one can legally interfere with the exercise of 
this power by the Bishop in charge. 

(2) The Board of Foreign Missions is authorized to pass upon 
the physical, intellectual, and moral fitness of one it is willing 
to support as a missionary, but no minister can be assigned to a 
mission field or appointed to a pastoral charge or other work 
therein by anyone except the Bishop in charge; and no minister 
can be taken legally from an appointment given to him by a 
Bishop for any service in a mission field without the consent 
of the Bishop in charge. 

Restoration of Expelled Preachers (Ruling 223). 

51. May, 1909. A member of an Annual Conference who 
has been expelled from its membership cannot be received as a 
member of the Church nor have any right to the ordinances of 
the Church until the Annual Conference has accepted as satis- 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


299 


factory his contrition and amendment. His reception by a 
local church without such formal action upon the part of the 
Annual Conference is without justification and membership so 
secured is null and void. 

Supernumerary Preacher, Conference Claimant (Ruling 260, 
Item 2). 

52. May, 1909. Supernumerary preachers being members of 
Annual Conferences may become Conference Claimants upon 
vote of their Conferences, the claims granted to be paid out of 
the necessitous fund, or fund for immediate distribution. 

Consecration of Bishops of Another Church 

53. May, 1909. The question having been raised as to the 
consecration of Bishops-elect for other Churches, it was agreed 
that the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church are not at 
liberty to ordain Bishops for any other Church, in the absence 
of authority from the General Conference. 

Rules of Administration Obligatory 

54. May, 1909. The question being asked, What is the 
measure of our obligation to follow the rules of administration 
as agreed upon? the answer is given: It is our opinion that 
the Bishops are all under moral obligation to follow the rules 
of administration as agreed upon. 

“Combined Financial System” (Discipline, Paragraph 103). 

55. May, 1909. (1) The Quarterly Conference may with¬ 

draw its authority from the Official Board, and revise or reverse 
any action taken by it except the adoption of a “combined 
financial system.” 

(2) Where the Official Board has not been organized, or 
where it fails to adopt a “combined financial plan,” the Quar¬ 
terly Conference has authority to require the Board of Stewards 
to carry out the Disciplinary plan, Paragraphs 293-300. 

Reappointment of District Superintendent (Ruling 104, 
Item 3). 

56. May, 1909. It is our opinion that Paragraph 194, Sec¬ 
tion 3, Item 2, means that a District Superintendent may not 
be continued on the same District more than six years con¬ 
secutively, nor on the same District more than six years in any 
consecutive twelve years. 

It is our opinion, also, that a District Superintendent should 
not be appointed to another District at the end of a six years’ 
term on one District, unless, as stated in “Rulings and Deci¬ 
sions,” 104 (3), his “non-reappointment would be a serious 
detriment to the work”; and that the words “serious detriment” 


Rulings 

submitted 

1912 


300 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1912 


should be taken to indicate some remarkably exceptional cir¬ 
cumstances in the work itself. 

Soliciting a Call to a Church 

57. May, 1909. A District Superintendent who advises a 
preacher on his District to solicit and secure a formal call to 
some church, as a condition precedent to promising him an ap¬ 
pointment, is guilty of grave unmethodistic conduct. 

“Mortgaging Church Property” (Ruling 170, Discipline, Para¬ 
graph 326.) 

58. [See p. 310.] 

Commission on Boundaries (Discipline, Paragraph 451). 

59. May, 1909. (1) There is no Disciplinary provision for a 

joint Commission on Boundaries between an Annual Confer¬ 
ence and a Mission. 

(2) A legally appointed Commission on Boundaries has no 
Disciplinary authority to lift a boundary line and thereby unite 
two Annual Conferences. 

Deaconesses and the Pastorate 

60. November, 1909. A deaconess cannot lawfully be ap¬ 
pointed to serve as a pastor of a church. 

Church Insurance Officers Ineligible to Episcopal Appointment 
(Discipline, Paragraph 194, Section 3). 

61. November, 1909. A Church Insurance Company cannot 
be considered a “Benevolent Agency”; hence we are not at 
liberty, under the provisions of the Discipline, to appoint mem¬ 
bers of Annual Conferences as agents or officers of such com¬ 
panies. 

Official Reproof Not Required of a Presiding Bishop 

62. November, 1909. When an Annual Conference finds 
that a member has been guilty of high imprudence and unmin- 
isterial conduct and subjects the offender to a reproof, there is 
no law by which the Annual Conference or the Select Number 
may require the Bishop presiding to administer the reproof 
for the Annual Conference. 

Suspension: Duration of 

63. November, 1909. The question being raised if the sen¬ 
tence of suspension can extend beyond the next succeeding ses¬ 
sion of the Annual Conference imposing the sentence, the 
answer is that when the suspension is conditioned upon cer¬ 
tain requirements it may be extended until the requirements be 
met. 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


301 


Elder's Ordination Under Seminary Rule (Discipline, Para¬ 
graph 170, Section 3). 

64. November, 1909. When a preacher who is admitted 
on trial, ordained Deacon, and placed in the studies of the 
third year under the seminary rule, is continued on trial and 
advanced to the studies of the fourth year at the succeeding ses¬ 
sion, at the session next thereafter he may be admitted into 
full membership and ordained an Elder, being thus graduated 
from the course of study at the end of his second year on trial. 

Commission on Boundaries, Tenure of 

65. November, 1909. A Commission raised by an Annual 
Conference on the readjustment of boundaries does not need to 
be reappointed from session to session, but should report to each 
annual session of the Conference until such commission shall 
be discharged. 

“Conference,” Meaning of in Discipline, Paragraph 451 
(Later Ruling 60). 

66. November, 1909. The term “Conference” in the first 
line of Paragraph 451 includes both Annual and Mission Con¬ 
ferences. 

Preachers—Only Three Classes 

67. November, 1909. (1) The Discipline recognizes but three 
classes of preachers: Effective, Supernumerary, Retired. 

(2) All the years that a member of an Annual Conference 
spends in the effective relation are all to be counted in making 
up the record of ministerial service. 

Missionary Appropriation not Transferable 

68. November, 1909. In our judgment, it is not lawful for 
a District Superintendent to transfer part of the missionary 
appropriation from one charge to another during the Confer¬ 
ence year, either with or without the consent of the Bishop in 
charge. 

Admission of Preacher On Trial (Later Ruling 4). 

69. November, 1909. It is our judgment that the provision 
of Paragraph 152 of the Discipline necessitates unbroken serv¬ 
ice for two successive years as a condition of admission into 
full membership in the Annual Conference. 

Transferred Church, Rights of (The Merced Case). 

70. November, 1909. A church building at Merced, within 
the territory of the California Conference, was sold and the 
money so received was invested elsewhere, as it was supposed 
that the Methodist Episcopal Church would not reenter the 


Rulings 

submitted 

1912 


302 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


town in which said church had been located. Before the expira¬ 
tion of the five years allowed by the provision of the Discipline 
the territory was transferred to the Southern California Confer¬ 
ence. The Trustees of the latter Conference requested that the 
proceeds from the sale of the Merced property be given to the 
Southern California Conference, for use in the town which had 
been previously abandoned. The question being raised as to 
the claim of the Southern California Conference, it is given as 
our opinion that the Southern California Conference has the 
right to the proceeds of the sale of the property in question. 

Probationary Membership Imperative (Discipline, Paragraph 
48, Section 3; Paragraph 53). 

71. November, 1909. The probationary relation is required 
as a condition precedent to reception into full membership. The 
period of probation is no longer of definite length, but the proba¬ 
tionary membership is imperative. 

"Triers of Appeals in Excess of Disciplinary Number'* (Disci¬ 
pline, Paragraph 278). 

72. [See p. 310, 311.] 

Divorced Persons, Eligibility to Church Membership 

73. November, 1909. The question having been raised as to 
the eligibility of divorced persons, afterward married, for mem¬ 
bership in our Church, we answer that the General Confer¬ 
ence has not legislated on this subject. There is, therefore, no 
law for the Bishops to interpret. The pastor must determine 
what persons are eligible to membership, under the Discipline. 

Restoration of Credentials 

74. November, 1909. The question of the restoration of 
credentials may be determined only by the Annual Conference 
which holds such credentials. 

(< Other Evangelical Churches” 

75. May, 1910. We do not deem it expedient to enumerate the 
churches to which the term “Other Evangelical Churches” in 
Paragraph 156 of the Discipline may rightfully be applied. The 
decision in doubtful cases must remain with the Bishop and 
the Annual Conference. In general, we would say that only 
those forms of organized Christianity should be recognized 
as Churches which, by reason of their history, their organiza¬ 
tion, their Christian work, the number of their adherents, the 
requirements for admission in their ministry and orders, clearly 
have such standing. The term “Evangelical Churches” is 
applicable to Churches that adhere to the fundamental doc- 


Rulings 

submitted 

1912 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


303 


trines of evangelical Christianity as declared in the basal declara¬ 
tion of the Federated Churches of Christ in America. 

Surrender of Parchments (Ruling 176) 

76. May, 1910. An ordained local preacher desiring, for any 
reason, to surrender his credentials, should surrender them 
to the Secretary of the Annual Conference within which he 
holds his Quarterly Conference relation. 

Orders of a “Discontinued” Probationer 

77. May, 1910. The specific rule under which a preacher on 
trial is elected and ordained a Deacon does not affect the validity 
of his orders in case of the termination of his relation to the 
Annual Conference. If he retains his membership in the 
Church, he has the standing of an ordained local preacher. 

Equitable Balance in Transfers 

78. May, 1910. In the matter of transfers we deem it a 
safe and just rule to preserve, as far as possible, an equitable 
balance in transfers into and out of a Conference; but we recog¬ 
nize the possibility of conditions which will justify the transfer¬ 
ring of a preacher into an Annual Conference without an equiv¬ 
alent transfer from it. 

Minister Married to Divorced Woman 

79. May, 1910. The case was presented of a minister mar¬ 
ried to a woman who had been divorced. The court record in 
the case does not show that the divorce was secured on scrip¬ 
tural grounds, though the woman claims that there is such a 
warrant for her action. The question, “Should the minister so 
married be appointed a District Superintendent?” being raised, 
it is answered: In view of the court record, a minister under 
such conditions should not be appointed District Superintend¬ 
ent. 

Judicial Decisions Operative 

80. May, 1910. Judicial decisions of the General Conference 
become operative at the close of the General Conference which 
takes such action, even though such decisions be not printed 
in the Discipline. 

Prorating Moneys for Ministerial Support 

81. May, 1910. It is our opinion that the law of the Church 
in regard to the pro rata division of the amounts raised for 
Ministerial Support is binding, and it is incumbent upon the 
pastors and District Superintendents to see that the pro rdta 
division be made. 


Rulings 

submitted 

1912 


304 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1912 


Collections in Sunday Schools 

82. May, 1910. The taking of a missionary collection at 
least one Sunday in each month is mandatory. The question 
of taking an additional collection for current expenses is to be 
decided by the local Sunday School Board. 

Furloughed Missionary, His Employment and Support 

83. May, 1910. The fact that a minister of a Foreign Mis¬ 
sion Conference is in America on furlough constitutes no obliga¬ 
tion for his employment by a Bishop or by a District Super¬ 
intendent; and the matter of his support is one for which his 
Annual Conference and the Board of Foreign Missions should 
provide. 

Italian Mission, Supervision Thereof 

84. May, 1910. 1. All the functions of the District Super¬ 

intendency inhere in the superintendency of a Mission in which 
there is but one District. 

2. By the action of the General Conference constituting 
the Italian Mission, all the Italian work within the bounds of 
said Mission comes under the jurisdiction of the Italian Mis¬ 
sion. While the responsibility for the official supervision of 
organized Italian work is exclusively with the Superintendent 
of the Italian Mission, yet in this, as in the other Church inter¬ 
ests, it is important to have the hearty cooperation of all con¬ 
cerned in the progress of the work. 

Apportionment by Board of Conference Claimants 

85. May, 1910. The question is raised as to the right of the 
Board of Conference Claimants to apportion to each charge an 
amount equal to one per cent of the pastor's salary . . . “for 
connectional relief, in addition to the collections ordered by the 
Book of Discipline The answer is, The Discipline does not 
give any such authority to the Board of Conference Claimants. 

Amendments to Buies of Bishops' Conference 

86. May, 1910. At the Bishops' Conference, following the 
first call for communications and miscellaneous business, under 
Rule IX, Items 2 and 3, the review of administration as pro¬ 
vided for in Item 4 shall be taken up and shall proceed until 
finished, without interjection of other business. 

Miscellaneous business, requiring urgency (Item 3), may be 
introduced on motion at any time when other questions are not 
before the Conference. 

Following Item 4, of Rule IX, there shall be inserted a new 
item, termed “Pastoral Supply," under which call each Bishop 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


305 


shall give information concerning vacancies and changes in pas¬ 
toral supply which may involve transfer. 

87. [There appears to be no such Ruling offered.] 

Annual Conference Quorum (Ruling 18) 

88. November, 1910. An Annual Conference is not a self- 
constituted organization, but is a body created for certain 
specific purposes and has no power to establish any definite or 
proportionate number as a quorum for the transaction of the 
business of the Conference. 

Restoration to Annual Conference Membership 

89. November, 1910. If a member of an Annual Confer¬ 
ence, in good standing, has withdrawn from the ministry and 
membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church he cannot be 
restored to membership in an Annual Conference unless he 
has reunited with the Church, and has been duly recommended 
to an Annual Conference for membership therein. 

Withdrawal by Consent (Ruling 59) 

90. November, 1910. A member of an Annual Conference, 
with the consent of the Conference, may withdraw his mem¬ 
bership from the Conference. In such case the Annual Confer¬ 
ence may consider the circumstances connected with the with¬ 
drawal and determine whether the entry against his name 
shall be “Withdrawn,” or “Withdrawn under Charges.” 

Conference Evangelists (Rulings 125, 126) 

91. November, 1910. The Discipline of the Church (Para¬ 
graph 194) says: “The Bishop, if requested by an Annual 
Conference, may appoint one or more members of an Annual 
Conference to do evangelistic work within that Conference,” etc. 
In view of this law a Conference evangelist can act as such 
only within his own Annual Conference for which he has been 
appointed. The ruling conflicting with this shall be modified 
accordingly. 

Rights in Parsonage Property 

92. November, 1910. Where several churches on a pastoral 
charge join in contributing for the purchase or erection of a 
parsonage for the charge, each of the several churches so con¬ 
tributing has an equitable claim in the parsonage property. If 
a church is set off from the pastoral charge, it retains its claim. 
If all the churches on the pastoral charge cease to exist with 
the exception of one, the claims of all the extinct churches shall 
be vested in the one remaining church. If another church is 
placed on the circuit or pastoral charge with said remaining 
church, the new church does not thereby secure an equity in 


Rulings 

submitted 

1912 


306 EEPOBTS OF THE JUDICIABY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1912 


said parsonage property, but the claim and right thereto con¬ 
tinues in the surviving member or members of the original pas¬ 
toral charge that secured the parsonage. 

Parsonage Property—Transfer of 

93. November, 1910. Where two churches are combined into 
one pastoral charge, and only one of the churches is the owner 
of parsonage property, the Trustees of the church owning the 
parsonage, or the Trustees holding the parsonage, if the law per¬ 
mit, may transfer said property to the other church or to a 
Board of Trustees created to hold the same for both churches. 

Two Charges Served by Same Pastor 

94. May, 1911. When two pastoral charges, supplied for 
the time being by the same preacher, retain their separate 
organization each pastoral charge is entitled to elect its own 
delegate to the Lay Electoral Conference. 

Elder Under Seminary Rule 

95. [See p. 311.] 

Elder Under Local Preacher's Rule 

96. May, 1911. A preacher who has been a member of an 
Annual Conference one year cannot be elected to Elder’s orders 
under the Local Preacher’s Rule, although this year makes it 
four years since he became a local Deacon. He has ceased to 
be a local preacher. 

Appointment to Detached Service 

97. May, 1911. If a Bishop, believing that the Annual Con¬ 
ference has made the required request, appoints a preacher to a 
detached service, even should it develop that the required re¬ 
quest had not been made, the appointment would be valid. A 
properly qualified person made such appointment in good faith. 

Estimate of Support by District Stewards 

98. May, 1911. The District Stewards, after estimating the 
amount necessary to furnish a comfortable support for a Dis¬ 
trict Superintendent, are required to apportion that amount 
“among the different pastoral charges in the District, accord¬ 
ing to their several ability.” In determining the ability of a 
pastoral charge in which the pastor is aided by a missionary 
appropriation, the District Stewards in no case should take into 
account such missionary appropriation. 

Conference Membership if Not Continuous 

99. May, 1911. The annuity of a preacher whose Annual 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


307 


Conference membership has not been continuous should be based 
upon his years of effective service in an Annual Conference. 

Estimate for Each Conference Claimant 

100. May, 1911. A Quarterly Conference is required to send 
to the Annual Conference an estimate of the amount necessary 
to provide a comfortable support for each Conference Claimant 
residing within the bounds of the pastoral charge. 

Quarterly Conference and Conference Claimant 

101. May, 1911. The estimate of the amount necessary for 
the comfortable support of a Conference Claimant by a Quarterly 
Conference, certified by its President and Secretary, and sent 
to the Secretary of the Annual Conference, is declared to be 
for the information of the Board of Stewards, and the Discipline 
does not indicate that such action indorses such Conference 
Claimant's Christian and ministerial character. 

Board of Conference Claimants a Benevolent Board 

102. May, 1911. Discipline, Part VIII, Chapter IX, plainly 
gives to the Board of Conference Claimants a like place and 
equal standing and authority with the other “Benevolent 
Boards"; and money contributed to the Connectional Fund 
and the Permanent Fund of this Board should always be re¬ 
ported to the Annual Conference, included by its statistician in 
“Statistics No. 4," and paid by its Treasurer to the Treasurer 
of the Board of Conference Claimants. 

Sunday School Superintendent, Term of Service 

103. May, 1911. A Quarterly Conference is not authorized 
to instruct a Sunday School Board that a person shall not be 
elected Superintendent who has been in that office five years. 

Missionary Training Schools and Patronizing Conferences 

104. November, 1911. In the case of missionary training 
schools which are departments in deaconess institutions, the 
question has been raised whether there is a limit to the field 
from which such schools may secure students. The following 
action is recommended: In view of the relation of such schools 
to the deaconess work, it is agreed that the question of their 
patronizing fields should come before the General Conference in 
connection with the deaconess work. 

Relicensing of an Expelled Preacher 

105. November, 1911. (a) The question is raised: “If a 

member of an Annual Conference, after due trial, has been 
expelled from the ministry, but not from Church membership, 


Rulings 

submitted 

1912 


308 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1912 


may the Quarterly Conference relicense him to preach with¬ 
out consent of the Annual Conference that expelled him?” 

Answer. —A member of an Annual Conference who, after due 
trial, has been expelled from the ministry, but not from Church 
membership, has all the privilege of the church member. 

(b) “If a member of an Annual Conference, after due trial 
on charges affecting his moral fitness for the ministry, has been 
expelled from the Annual Conference and from the ministry, be 
relicensed by a Quarterly Conference, before any confession or 
expression of contrition has been made to the Annual Con¬ 
ference, can the Annual Conference validate such an illegal 
procedure by affording to him the status of a local preacher, 
entitled to ask for the return of his credentials?” 

Answer. —The recognition of a local preacher by restoring his 
credentials is a matter to be determined by the Annual Confer¬ 
ence to which he applies for recognition. 

(c) “Is there any difference between the legal status of a 
minister located upon his own request seeking readmission to 
an Annual Conference on his credentials and certificate of 
location, and an expelled member whose credentials have been 
restored without reference to the question of readmission ? 
Credentials having been restored in such a case, can the ex¬ 
pelled man be readmitted without a probation period?” 

Answer. —A preacher who has been located upon his own re¬ 
quest may be readmitted by direct vote of an Annual Confer¬ 
ence; but a preacher who has been expelled from the ministry, 
but not from the membership of the Church, and has been re- 
licensed as a local preacher, can only be received into an An¬ 
nual Conference on trial, after being recommended by a Quar¬ 
terly Conference. 

The Legality of Transfer in the Case of Effective Men Em¬ 
ployed by District Superintendents in Another Conference 

106. November, 1911. The Colorado Conference submitted 
the following statement and request: 

“Whereas, During the past year one or more of the District 
Superintendents have employed effective members of other An¬ 
nual Conferences, who were later transferred to this Conference, 
without this Conference having any voice in the matter; and, 

“Whereas, This action is in direct violation of the Discipline, 
Paragraphs 164 and 239; therefore, be it 

“Resolved, That Bishop Warren be requested to declare all 
such employment and transfers illegal, and that he take up 
these cases with the other Bishops concerned and request the 
retransfer of these men to the Annual Conferences from which 
they came.” 

In reply to the foregoing it is our judgment that the Annual 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


309 


Conference has no voice in this matter, and this action is not 
in any way related to or covered by the Paragraphs referred to. 
We regard the matter of such transfers as already covered by a 
rule previously adopted by the Board of Bishops. 

Nominal Appointments and Claims on the Annuity Fund 

107. November, 1911. “Are ministers who have filled nominal 
appointments without service rendered or salary received en¬ 
titled to count such years as Effective in reckoning annuity 
due them?” 

Answer. —Yes, if they have remained Effective in the Disci¬ 
plinary sense. 

Withdrawal a Forfeiture of Claim on Conference Funds 

108. November, 1911. “If a member of an Annual Confer¬ 
ence leaves the ministry and membership of the Methodist Epis¬ 
copal Church, does this withdrawal work a forfeiture of all 
claims on the annuity and necessitous funds of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church?” 

Answer. —Yes. 

Readmission and Its Effect Upon Claims on Conference Funds 

109. November, 1911. “If years later he is readmitted into 
the membership and ministry of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, does such readmission restore the rights previously 
forfeited and entitle him to count those years as effective when 
the question of annuity is being considered, and does the claim 
date from the time of readmission?” 

Answer. —Readmission to the membership of the Annual Con¬ 
ference entitles the preacher thus readmitted to count the years 
of effective service prior to his withdrawal, as well as subse¬ 
quent to his readmission, as the basis of claims upon annuitant 
funds. 

Satisfactory Credentials From Other Churches 

110. November, 1911. In receiving a minister from another 
evangelical Church there should be satisfactory evidence of 
good standing in the ministry at the time. In Churches which 
publish a list of ministers the latest published list should be 
presented with letter of dismissal where Churches issue such 
letters. In case there should be no published list, or any letter 
of dismissal, the applicant should present the indorsement of 
the Quarterly or District Conference acquainted with him. 

Have the Examining Boards of Missions Final Authority in the 
Advance of Undergraduates f 

111. November, 1911. As to the question of competency of 
the examining committee of a Mission to examine an under- 


Rulings 

submitted 

1912 


310 REPORTS OP THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1912 


graduate who belongs to a remote Annual Conference, it is 
agreed that the Annual Conference must determine the educa¬ 
tional qualifications of its undergraduates. 

The Publication of the Bishops' Rulings 

112. November, 1911. It is recommended to the General 
Conference that where rulings of the Bishops respecting cases 
frequently recurring, or for any reason of general interest are 
approved by the General Conference, such rulings be printed 
in the Appendix of the Discipline. 

RULINGS MODIFIED OR NOT APPROVED 

The first sentence of Ruling No. 53, which reads as follows, 
to wit: 

“Mortgaging Church Property ” (Ruling 170, Discipline , Para¬ 
graph 326). 

58. May, 1909. [“The Discipline plainly forbids any mort¬ 
gage on church property for the purpose of securing funds for 
the current expenses of the Church,” is approved by the Com¬ 
mittee. 

The second sentence of Ruling No. 58, which reads as fol¬ 
lows: “It is our opinion, also, that the Trustees cannot give a 
note or other instrument for the sake of securing current expense 
funds where the civil law would hold the church property for 
the debt so made,” is disapproved by the Committee because 
the giving of a note or other instrument for the sake of secur¬ 
ing current expense funds does not of itself constitute an in¬ 
cumbrance, and only becomes such when judgment has been 
obtained therein.] 

Ruling No. 72, which reads as follows: 

“Triers of Appeals in Excess of Disciplinary Number” ( Disci¬ 
pline , Paragraph 278). 

72. November, 1909. “Where the Judicial Conference is 
called and it appears that in any one of the Conferences from 
which Triers of Appeals have been selected, a number exceeding 
that allowed by the Discipline has been chosen, should the Judi¬ 
cial Conference on that account be dissolved? We answer: 
that it is our opinion that the fact of an Annual Conference 
having inadvertently appointed more than the Disciplinary num¬ 
ber of Triers of Appeals should not lead to the dissolving of 
the Judicial Conference; but the last named Triers of Appeals 
from any Annual Conference, over and above the Disciplinary 
number allowed should be dropped,” is disapproved because the 
Triers of Appeals were never legally elected. If a law provides 
for the election of five persons, and a ballot is voted which con- 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


311 


tains six names, the ballot must be rejected, and there is no 
election. 

Elder Under Seminary Rule 

95. May, 1911. “An Annual Conference is not authorized 
to elect a preacher to Elder’s orders under the Seminary Rule 
one year after his election to Deacon’s orders under said rule, 
although he may have complied with all the requirements in the 
Discipline , Paragraph 170, Section 3,” in the opinion of the 
Committee on Judiciary should be modified by inserting the 
word “other” before the word “requirements.” 

Report of Committee on Judiciary adopted, May 28. 1 


1916 

The rulings acted upon by the Committee on Judiciary and 
the General Conference of 1916 were sixty-eight in their 
total. The important interests involved are indicated in the 
following summary: 

Report No. 24 

RULINGS OF BOARD OF BISHOPS 

Your Committee on Judiciary respectfully reports that the 
Rulings of the Bishops, as submitted to said Committee by the 
Secretary of the Board of Bishops in pursuance of authority so 
to do conferred on him by the General Conference, are hereto 
appended with our rulings thereon : 2 

Lay Electoral Conference and Laymen's Association 

114. November, 1912. The Lay Electoral Conference and the 
Laymen’s Association are separate and distinct bodies, and the 
one cannot take the place of the other. 

Laymen's Association—Time of Meeting 

115. November, 1912. The Laymen’s Association, if it meet, 
must do so at the place and during the session of the Annual 
Conference. 

Episcopal Administration in Mexico 

116. November, 1912. Paragraphs 542 and 543 of the Disci¬ 
pline of 1912 are applicable only to Annual Conferences in the 
United States of America; therefore the Mexico Annual Con¬ 
ference should be administered as heretofore. 

1 Journal , 1912, pp. 499, 565-578. 

2 Most of the following rulings were adopted by the Committee on Judi¬ 
ciary, their disapproval or modification being indicated in the case of 
Rulings 119, 125, 155,160,171,176, 178, and B. 


Rulings 

submitted 

1912 


Conference 

action 


Sixty-eight 

Rulings 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 




312 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1916 


Examinations in Course of Study 

117. November, 1912. After July 1, 1913, all Conferences 
must follow the new Course of Study, and this only. 

Term of Office of District Superintendents 

118. November, 1912. Paragraph 203, Section 2, of the 
Discipline of 1912, provides that District Superintendents in 
either Missions or Mission Conferences in foreign lands may be 
appointed to the same District for more than six consecutive 
years; but the limitation of the term of a District Superintend¬ 
ent in an Annual Conference is of force in all Annual Con¬ 
ferences, whether in the home or the foreign field. 

Submission of Proposed Amendment for Bishops for Races and 
Languages 

119. November, 1912. The General Conference, by 520 votes 
out of a total of 565, favored the amendment of the Constitu¬ 
tion so as to authorize the election of Bishops for Races and 
Languages; and, in view of this action, the Bishops should 
submit the aforesaid proposed amendment to the Annual and 
Lay Electoral Conferences at the session immediately preced¬ 
ing the next General Conference. 

[Inasmuch as Rule 119 was rescinded by the Bishops in May, 
1915, we find it unnecessary to pass thereon.] 

Abandoned Church Property on Circuits 

120. November, 1912. In the case of abandoned church prop¬ 
erty on a circuit, the proceeds of its sale having been given to 
the Annual Conference, as provided in the Discipline, and five 
years having elapsed without the resuscitation of the Society, 
may be divided among the Societies on the circuit, as determined 
by the Annual Conference to which the Society belonged. 

Basis of Claim of Conference Claimants 

121. November, 1912. The claim of a Conference Claimant 
is determined upon the basis set forth in Paragraphs 331 and 
333 of the Discipline of 1912, and it is to be estimated invariably 
upon that basis, but the apportionment for the purpose of secur¬ 
ing this claim, in whole or in part, is at the discretion of the 
Annual Conference, as provided in Paragraph 326. 

Licensing of Local Preachers of the Italian Mission 

122. November, 1912. In the administration of the Italian 
Mission in the matter of licensing local preachers, or the re¬ 
newal of licenses of local preachers and exhorters by the Mis¬ 
sion, the examination in the Course of Study may be by the 
Quarterly Conference to which the candidate is formally re- 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


313 


lated, and the representation usually made in person may be 
by correspondence. 

Distribution of Book of Rulings 

123. May, 1913. In response to the request from certain 
District Superintendents for the book of rulings of the Bishops, 
the answer is returned that there is no fund available for the 
printing of such an edition as would be necessary to supply all 
District Superintendents, which would have to be done if those 
in any one section were so supplied. Any District Super¬ 
intendent may consult the decisions which have been passed 
upon by the General Conference, and which have been printed 
in the Journal and in the Daily Christian Advocate . 

Rulings of Bishops Upon Church Law in the General Conference 

124. May, 1913. The Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church have pronounced upon the constitutionality of meas¬ 
ures presented to and passed upon by the General Conference, 
and have announced their opinion to that body as a matter of 
constitutional right, but the Board of Bishops has never felt 
free to pass upon a proposed amendment to the Constitution, 
especially before it reached the General Conference or before 
it was presented in an Annual Conference. 

While this ruling may be true as a statement of facts, in its 
implications it is seriously misleading. What is meant by the 
words, “measures presented to and passed upon by the General 
Conference,” is not stated. If it is intended to assert that the 
Board of Bishops, or any individual Bishop, should hold, if and 
when a matter is properly brought before them or him for a 
decision, that a legislative act of the General Conference fails if 
antagonistic to the Constitution, and the question has never 
been judicially decided by the General Conference, then the 
assertion is well-founded. But if it is intended to assert that 
the Board of Bishops may refuse to follow decisions of the Gen¬ 
eral Conference in matters presented to it, when sitting as the 
final judicial tribunal of the Church, then the assertion is revolu¬ 
tionary and ill-founded. 

The Constitution is unquestionably the supreme law of the 
Church; but, like every other law, it must, in case of dispute, 
be interpreted by some one. Who in our Church is to interpret 
it ? In the first instance, of course, that member or official who 
is claiming a right under it. But the matter does not end 
there. The assertion that an action of the General Conference 
violates the Constitution raises a question of law; and from 
the earliest days until now the ultimate judicial tribunal of the 
Church to decide questions of law has been and is the General 
Conference. For any violation of the law of the Church the 
offender, whether of high or low degree, is subject to such 


Rulings 

submitted 

1916 


314 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1916 


ecclesiastical punishment as the General Conference may have 
provided therefor before the commission of the offense. Inas¬ 
much, therefore, as the General Conference is the ultimate legis¬ 
lative authority to declare the law of the Church, and is the 
ultimate judicial authority within the Church to determine 
whether or not that law has been violated and to punish the 
offender if it has been, it necessarily follows that its unreversed 
judicial decision that a law is constitutional is binding upon 
everybody connected with the Church from the highest to the 
lowest, until and unless that decision shall have been over¬ 
turned by the civil courts upon a case brought before them for 
adjudication. Any other conclusion would be chaotic; for if 
each person connected with the Church may decide for himself 
whether or not a judicial decision of the General Conference 
upon a constitutional question is correct, then every member 
may override every act of the General Conference and every 
judicial decision made by it, and its judicial powers are wholly 
destroyed. Under such circumstances the Church would not be 
an organization, but a body of disunited men held together by 
nothing more substantial than a rope of sand. 

The Right of an Annual Conference to Reconsider Its Vote 
Upon a Constitutional Question 

125. May, 1913. On a question submitted as to the right of 
an Annual Conference to reconsider its vote upon a constitu¬ 
tional question, the material facts concerning the action taken 
are not presented, so that we are not free to make a ruling upon 
the particular question. The general principle, however, has 
been decided. (See Ruling 21, Section 2, October, 1894.) 

[The ruling in this matter says: “The material facts con¬ 
cerning the action taken are not presented, so that we are not 
free to make a ruling upon the particular question.” It fol¬ 
lows as of course that as there was no decision, there is nothing 
for the Judiciary Committee to approve or disapprove. We 
would request, however, that in the future a sufficient state¬ 
ment of the facts be given to enable the Committee to under¬ 
stand the matter in its direct as well as its indirect bearings. 
Ayes, 16; nays, 0.] 

Prorating of Receipts for Ministerial Support 

126. May, 1913. Upon the subject of prorating receipts for 
ministerial support, the legislation of the Church as recorded 
in the book of Discipline is explicit. The importance of the 
matter, however, is such as to justify the Bishops in calling the 
attention of the District Superintendents to the law. 

Charges Without Preliminary Private Reproof 

127. May, 1913. In the case of charges by a pastor or private 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


315 


member of the Church against another member of the Church, 
if the charge is for a violation of the “moral law,” no pre¬ 
liminary reproof is necessary, but in case the matter falls under 
the head of “imprudent conduct” it is necessary on the first and 
second offenses that “private reproof” be given. On the third 
offense, the preliminary reproof is not required. 

Election of Sunday School Teachers at Annual Meetings 

128. May, 1913. As Paragraph 465, Section 3, of the Book 
of Discipline of 1912, provides that teachers shall be elected an¬ 
nually by the local Sunday School Board, it would seem that 
the annual meeting should be regarded as the proper time for 
such election. 

Authority of a Trustee Duly Elected but Not Confirmed by the 
Quarterly Conference 

129. May, 1913. A Trustee legally elected according to the 
law of the State, but not confirmed as a member of the Quar¬ 
terly Conference, cannot sit as a member of the Quarterly Con¬ 
ference and cannot be a member of the Official Board, which is 
made up of the members of the Quarterly Conference. Under 
such circumstances, however, it is not necessary for the Quar¬ 
terly Conference to separate the Board of Trustees from the 
Official Board, but the said Trustee can meet with the Board 
of Trustees when it is legally necessary for the Board to trans¬ 
act certain business by itself. 

Relation of Assistant Secretaries, Treasurer, and Librarians to 
the Sunday School Board 

130. May, 1913. Paragraph 565, Section 1, Article 3, of the 
Discipline of 1912, includes as members of the Sunday School 
Board “duly elected secretaries, treasurer, and librarians.” The 
word “treasurer” is single, so that it is plain that only one 
treasurer can be a member of the local Sunday School Board. 
The law does not specify assistant secretaries or assistant 
librarians; therefore it contemplates full secretaries and full 
librarians only. 

“The System of Christian Doctrine” 

131. May, 1913. In the Conference Course of Study the book 
entitled The System of Christian Doctrine was formerly in the 
Course of Study for the second year, while it is now divided 
between the third and fourth years. A question is raised as 
to credits to be given for this book to preachers now in the 
studies of the third and fourth years, and it is answered, if 
such preachers have already been passed by the Board of Ex¬ 
aminers on this book, the previous credits may be counted. 


Rulings 

submitted 

1916 


316 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1916 


The Federation of Methodist Churches with Those of Other 
Denominations 

132. May, 1913. There is no law in the book of Discipline 
which authorizes the blending or federation of a Methodist 
Episcopal Church with a church of another denomination so as 
to destroy the identity of the said Methodist Episcopal Church; 
therefore no Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church can take 
itself and its property out of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
by a so-called federation with another denomination. It con¬ 
tinues to be a Methodist Episcopal Church in organization and 
obligation, and it is the duty of the District Superintendent 
to continue his supervision thereof, to hold Quarterly Confer¬ 
ences, and to discharge all other duties which under the law 
and usages of the Church pertain to his office. 

The Authority of an Annual Conference to Excuse from Ex¬ 
amination in the Course of Study 

133. May, 1913. The Annual Conference cannot excuse a 
preacher on trial from the legally prescribed Conference Course 
of Study or admit him into full membership without satisfactory 
examination* upon such Course of Study. (See Ruling 46, 
November, 1893.) 

The Right of An Annual Conference to the Custody of 
Credentials 

134. May, 1913. In view of the law of the Church and the 
agreement entered into by the individual minister with the 
Church, the Annual Conference becomes the legal custodian of 
ministerial credentials when a party ’withdraws or ceases to be 
a minister, and the Conference can therefore legally demand 
the return of such credentials to itself. 

The Employment of Evangelists 

135. May, 1913. The employment of preachers as evangelists 
seems to be sufficiently covered by the present law and usage 
of the Church and particularly by the provision of Paragraph 
181 of the Discipline. The responsibility for the employment 
of evangelists, or other persons purposing to help in evangelistic 
meetings, is with the pastor of the charge and the District 
Superintendent. 

The Validity of Paragraph 186 , Section 3, of the Discipline 
of 1912 

136. May, 1913. (a) As no amendment was made to the 

law previously in force, by the General Conference of 1912, and 
no amendment to the law was even proposed, the law should 
stand as it appeared in the book of Discipline of 1908, nothwith- 



KULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


317 


standing the error in the Discipline of 1912. (b) A Standing 
Committee is hereby created to note errors in the Discipline 
and report the same to the ensuing Bishops’ Conference. Other 
Bishops shall call the attention of this Committee to supposed 
errors in the printed Discipline. 

Introduction to the Annual Conferences 

137. May, 1913. Bishops should not on their own initiative 
present to the Annual Conferences over which they preside 
persons representing causes other than those recognized by the 
Discipline of the Church. 

Special Appointments 

138. May, 1913. Bishops should strictly construe the law in 
regard to special appointments of members of an Annual Con¬ 
ference and should make no special appointment that is not 
clearly authorized according to the book of Discipline . Where 
a Bishop has made an appointment and subsequently is con¬ 
vinced that such appointment is not clearly authorized, he should 
correct it at the earliest moment he can do so with propriety. 

Proceeds From the Sale of Abandoned Churches 

139. May, 1913. When abandoned churches have been sold 
and the proceeds have been placed in the custody of the Annual 
Conference, it is within the power of the Annual Conference 
to vote that the proceeds be used for the benefit of the charges 
from which the churches were sold, but the Annual Conference 
should carefully safeguard the proceeds in every particular, ac¬ 
cording to the terms of the law. 

The Biblical Institute in Jerusalem 

140. May, 1913. The work in connection with the Bishop 
Newman Biblical Institute in the city of Jerusalem is properly 
under the episcopal oversight of Bishop Nuelsen, resident in 
Zurich. 

Tenure of Office of District Superintendents 

141. October, 1913. The ruling adopted November, 1912 
(No. 118), respecting the tenure of office of District Superin¬ 
tendents in foreign fields is recalled. 

Concerning the Trinity-Marie Case: Rights of Trustees 

142. October, 1913. The Trustees of Trinity Church, Chi¬ 
cago, like all Trustees of Methodist Episcopal Church property, 
hold said trusteeship under the laws of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. Therefore the Trustees of Trinity Church cannot 
oust any regularly appointed pastor from the pulpit and parson¬ 
age of Trinity Church, nor have they power as Trustees to oust 


Rulings 

submitted 

1916 


318 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 


1916 


any regularly appointed pastor from the pulpit and parsonage 
of Marie Church. 

Nonresident Members 

143. October, 1913. Inasmuch as under the provisions for 
the report of “full members” the item “nonresident members” 
refers distinctly to the Discipline, Paragraph 57, it is evident 
that in the statistical blank under “nonresident members” there 
should be reported only those whose addresses cannot be ascer¬ 
tained for one year after faithful search and after whose names 
on the record the words, “removed without certificate” have 
been entered. Such “nonresident members” should not be 
counted in the basis of apportionments, nor should they be in¬ 
cluded in the figures given under “members now on roll.” 

Language in Which the Minutes of the Mexico Conference 
Shall Be Published 

144. October, 1913. The question as to the language or 
languages in which Conference Minutes shall be published is a 
question of convenience rather than of law. The Bishops see 
no reason why the Mexico Conference should not be allowed to 
follow the precedents established by other foreign Conferences. 

The Conference Board of Home Missions and Church Extension 

145. October, 1913. In case an Annual Conference fails to 
elect a Conference Board of Home Missions and Church Exten¬ 
sion, the old Board continues to act until successors are regu¬ 
larly elected. The old Board may decide for itself whether it 
shall hold an election of officers, the old officers holding their 
places until their successors are elected. In case a member of 
a Conference Board of Home Missions and Church Extension 
removes his church membership from the Conference which 
appointed him a member of said Board, he forfeits his member¬ 
ship in the Board as well as any office that he may hold therein. 

Transfer of Church Property From German-Speaking to Eng¬ 
lish-Speaking Conference 

146. October, 1913. It is our opinion that in the absence of 
any distinct provision by the General Conference the change of 
the language used in the services of a Church would not act 
as a transfer of that Church from one Conference to another, 
even where terms relating to language are used in defining 
boundaries. 

Return to Conference Membership of a Minister Withdrawn 

147. October, 1913. In the case of a minister who has with¬ 
drawn from an Annual Conference but has not united with an¬ 
other evangelical Church and who desires to return, it is neces¬ 
sary for him to join the Methodist Episcopal Church on proba- 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


319 


tion, be received into full membership; be licensed as a local 
preacher, be duly recommended to the Annual Conference, and 
be received into the Annual Conference on trial. Then it is 
within the power of the Conference to restore his parchments. 
The Conference is not at liberty to free him from the two 
years’ membership on trial, but at its discretion may release 
him from any part of the Conference Course of Study. 

Appeal of Expelled Minister 

148. October, 1913. In the case of an expelled member of 
the Central Alabama Conference, whose appeal to the Judicial 
Conference has been rejected upon the ground that he had for¬ 
feited his right of appeal, and who now appeals to the Bishops 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church for relief, it is agreed that 
the Board of Bishops has no jurisdiction in the case. 

Appeal of Certain Local Preachers in Columbia River Conference 

149. October, 1913. In the case of certain local preachers in 
the territory of the Columbia River Conference who were not 
relicensed because of a ruling by the District Superintendent 
sustained by the Bishop presiding, and who now appeal to the 
Bishops for a reversal of said ruling, it is agreed that the ap¬ 
peal should go not to the Bishops but to the General Conference. 
(See Paragraph 304, Section 13, of the Discipline.) 

The Colorado Conference and the Retirement of Preachers 

150. October, 1913. The Colorado Conference is adopting 
certain rules governing the retirement of preachers and desires 
to know if it would be constitutional to put into effect a provision 
that preachers shall be retired automatically at a certain age 
limit. It is answered that “An Annual Conference cannot 
legally put such a requirement into effect.” 

Reception of Members From Other Evangelical Churches 

151. October, 1913. It is asked if a member of another 
evangelical Church can be received into the Methodist Episcopal 
Church by letter without answering the questions which are 
prescribed in Chapter 1, Paragraph 48, Section 4, of the Disci¬ 
pline. It is answered that all persons who seek membership 
in our Church, whether from probation or by letter from other 
evangelical Churches, should by answer to the questions pre¬ 
scribed for the reception of (full) members declare their con¬ 
formity to our doctrines and Discipline. (See Discipline of 
1912, Paragraph 48, Section 4.) 

Reconsideration of Motion to Restore Credentials 

152. October 1913. It is asked: “Can an Annual Conference 
reconsider the vote by which it granted the return of the creden- 


Rulings 

submitted 

1916 


320 REPOETS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1916 


tials of a member who had been deposed from its ministry after 
due trial, but was afterward licensed to preach?” It is an¬ 
swered: “An Annual Conference may reconsider such action, 
provided the reconsideration takes place during the annual 
session of the Conference at which the action was taken and 
before the credentials have been actually returned, but not later.” 

Committee of Inquiry and the Bight of Challenge 

153. October, 1913. It is our opinion that in the selection 
of a Committee of Inquiry, as distinct from a Committee of 
Investigation, the accused has not the right of challenge. 

Procedure in Trial by Annual Conference 

154. October, 1913. In the case of a member of a certain 
Annual Conference a Committee of Inquiry was appointed. On 
the report of said Committee the Conference appointed a Special 
Committee to formulate charges which were entertained by the 
Conference. Should the Annual Conference then have proceeded 
to formal trial? Answer: “The Conference should have pro¬ 
ceeded at once to formal trial, unless it was impossible to secure 
witnesses, in which case the method prescribed in the Discipline, 
Paragraph 256, Section 4, should have been followed.” 

Divorce 

155. October, 1913. The Bishops have received various in¬ 
quiries as to the position of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
on the question of divorce. The utterance of the Church is 
found in the Discipline, Paragraph 67. This Section being 
placed in the Discipline under “Special Advices,” and yet being 
framed in language strictly legal, the question has naturally 
arisen as to whether our statement on divorce is advisory or 
mandatory. In answer to this question, the Bishops in May, 
1905, gave the following ruling: “ Discipline, Paragraph 67 
(On Divorce), is couched in language strictly legal and its loca¬ 
tion in the chapter on ‘Special Advices’ does not invalidate or 
modify its legal character.” This ruling of the Bishops was 
confirmed by the General Conference of 1908 upon the recom¬ 
mendation of the Committee on Judiciary. It thus clearly 
appears that our Disciplinary pronouncement on Divorce is not 
merely an Advice but a Law. This being true, the action of 
any minister in remarrying persons who have been divorced on 
any ground “except for adultery” becomes serious, not only 
because such action may have a relation to the increasing preva¬ 
lence of divorce in our country, but also because such action is a 
direct violation of the mandate of the Church. 

In addition to this, the matter may have important legal 
bearings. As Methodist Episcopal ministers are given the right 
to exercise their ministerial functions only under the laws of 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


321 


the Church, the civil right of our pastors to marry divorced 
persons contrary to our Church law would be in gravest doubt. 
In reply, therefore, to the various inquiries, we express the 
opinion that all our pastors are obliged to conform strictly to 
our law. We do this the more earnestly because we believe 
that our law represents the word of Christ. It is our conviction 
that the conformity of our ministers to the action of the General 
Conference will tend to exalt the marriage relation and to 
dignify the Church itself as the guardian of the home. 

[Approved with the exception of the statement in the last 
paragraph. It does not seem to us that the civil right of our 
pastors to marry divorced persons contrary to Church law is in 
grave doubt. The civil right of ministers to marry is derived 
from the law of the land. If in performing a marriage a 
Methodist minister marry divorced persons he violates the law 
of the Church and may be proceeded against by the Church 
authorities. A marriage celebrated contrary to Church law 
but not in violation of State law is unquestionably valid.] 

Transfer of a Preacher in the Italian Mission 

156. When a preacher in the Italian Mission shall be duly 
appointed to work within the bounds of an English-speaking 
Conference other than that within the bounds of which he has 
been serving, it shall be understood that, without the usual con¬ 
sultation between Bishops, the Bishop in charge shall transfer 
him to the Conference within the bounds of which his new ap¬ 
pointment is located, provided the transfer be for the pastorate 
of a church which is in the Italian Mission. 

Payment of Appropriation to a Conference Claimant 

157. It is within the province of an Annual Conference to 
direct that the appropriation made for Conference Claimants 
be paid in quarterly installments, rather than that the total 
amount be paid to the claimant at the beginning of the year. 

Recommendation for the Admission of Persons into Full 
Membership 

158. The law in the book of Discipline, Paragraph 48, Sec¬ 
tion 3, is that no one “be admitted into full membership until 
he has been recommended by the Official Board or the Leaders 
and Stewards’ meeting, with the approval of the pastor, etc.” 
The person, therefore, should be duly recommended by the 
Official Board or the Leaders and Stewards’ meeting, and not 
by a committee of either. 

Inquiry Into the Moral Conduct of a Member of an Annual 
Conference 

159. If the District Superintendent does not institute the 


Rulings 

submitted 

1916 


323 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1916 


investigations provided for by the Discipline, after the matter 
has been duly called to his attention, any member of the Church 
in good standing can prefer formal charges. 

Student-Pastors in Institutions of Learning 

160. In all cases of student-pastors and of churches asking 
aid from any Church Board, it is to be understood that there 
must be harmony between such student-pastors and such 
churches with the administration of the Church. 

[The statement of the ground for this ruling is insufficient 
and obscure. Your Committee does not find enough data on 
which to render any decision. Therefore we neither approve nor 
disapprove of this ruling.] 

Associate Membership 

161. There is no law of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
providing for associate membership therein. 

Nonresident Members 

162. Question. “Is nonresident membership limited as to 
time ?” 

Answer. —As the book of Discipline does not fix such a time, 
for the Bishops to do so would be assuming legislative functions 
which do not belong to them. 

Notification of Transfer 

163. The law of the Church makes provision for the an¬ 
nouncement of the notification of transfers. 

Accusation Against a District Superintendent 

164. Question, “Can a District Superintendent be brought 
before another District Superintendent and a Committee, as 
provided for in Paragraph 243, Section 2, Discipline of 1912, 
when the senior effective Elders referred to have not furnished 
charges and specifications against the accused, but state only 
that rumors exist which should be investigated without indi¬ 
cating the nature of said rumors ?” 

Answer. —In our opinion it is the duty of said senior ministers 
to formulate charges and specifications if they deem an investi¬ 
gation necessary, unless such charges have been prepared and 
signed by others. 

Amending a Bill of Charges 

165. It is asked, “Can a bill of charges be amended on the 
day of trial or investigation by the addition of matter not 
relevant to the accusations already known to the accused, without 
giving the accused sufficient additional time for preparation?” 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


323 


Answer .—A bill of charges cannot be so amended at such 
time. 

Ordination of Properly Elected Ministers During the Session 
of the Italian Mission 

166. As to the time of ordination the Bishop has full power 
to adjust the matter, but it is recommended that whenever 
practicable the ordination of ministers belonging to the Italian 
Mission take place during the annual session of that body. 

Affiliated Membership 

167. In the schools and colleges under the auspices of Meth¬ 
odism the question has arisen whether it is competent for a mem¬ 
ber of our Church in attendance upon one of our institutions 
of learning to secure from his pastor a certificate commending 
him to affiliated membership in one of our Methodist Episcopal 
Churches in the college community, without transfer of mem¬ 
bership from the home church. 

Answer. —The law of the Methodist Episcopal Church makes 
no provision for “associate membership” therein, but we can see 
no objection to such affiliated membership in the college church 
as is contemplated in this question. 

Right of Appeal Forfeited 

168. Question. —“A member of the Upper Mississippi Con¬ 
ference was, after trial and conviction, expelled from the min¬ 
istry and membership of the Church. He appealed, and in 
hearing before the Judicial Conference the minutes in the case 
it was found that the appellant had disappeared. The case was 
remanded for a new trial, and the accused was again convicted 
and expelled. He now again appeals the case. It appears that 
since his expulsion he has been preaching in other Churches. 
Has he not, by this course of action, forfeited his right of 
appeal?” 

Answer. —He has forfeited his right of appeal. 

Rearrangement of Conferences in Oklahoma City Residential 

Area 

169. November, 1914. Owing to the death of Bishop Mc¬ 
Intyre, the Conference in the Oklahoma City residential area 
was distributed as follows: To Bishop Shepard, Oklahoma Con¬ 
ference, Southern Swedish Mission, West Texas and Lincoln 
Conferences; to Bishop Thirkield, the Texas and Southern Ger¬ 
man Conferences. 

When a Bishop dies the Bishops should divide his work among 
the Bishops of the nearest adjoining areas. 

Membership of Retired Ministers in Quarterly Conferences 

170. November, 1914. In regard to the matter of appointing 


Rulings 

submitted 

1916 


324 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1916 


Retired ministers to membership in Quarterly Conferences, 
it is evident that such appointments are violations of the law in 
the book of Discipline, which reads: “Every Retired minister 
who is not employed as pastor of a charge shall have a seat in 
the Quarterly Conference and all the privileges of membership 
in the church where he resides.” ( Discipline of 1912, Para¬ 
graph 184.) 

The Right of a Supernumerary Preacher to a Share in the Con¬ 
ference Claimants' Fund 

171. November, 1914. It is plain that under the law and 
Constitution of the Church a Supernumerary preacher has a 
claim on the Conference Claimants’ Fund, subject to the action 
of the Annual Conference, but as a Supernumerary preacher 
he has no claim on the annuity distribution. 

[Modified. A Supernumerary preacher has no claim except 
by vote of the Annual Conference, and then his claim must be 
paid out of the necessitous fund. The ruling that a Super¬ 
numerary preacher has no claim on the annuity distribution is 
approved.] 

Rearrangement of the Conferences in the Saint Louis 
Residential Area 

172. November, 1914. Owing to the death of Bishop Smith 
the Conferences of the Saint Louis residential area were distri¬ 
buted as follows: To Bishop McDowell, the Southern Illinois; 
to Bishop Bristol, the Missouri; to Bishop Shepard, the Saint 
Louis German and the Central Missouri; to Bishop Thirkield, 
the Arkansas and Little Rock. 

Transfer of Probationers in An Annual Conference 

173. November, 1914. A probationer in an Annual Confer¬ 
ence, being a preacher subject to appointment by episcopal au¬ 
thority, is consequently subject to transfer by a Bishop. 

Irregular Transfer Not Valid 

174. November, 1914. A question has been raised as to 
whether a member of an Annual Conference is to be regarded as 
transferred when he has not been regularly transferred by the 
Bishops having supervision of the Conference where he belonged 
and the other Conference in which he is found serving as pastor 
of a church. 

We answer that neither preacher, nor District Superintendent, 
nor both together, can effect a transfer, and, though a preacher 
perform pastoral work in the territory of another Annual Con¬ 
ference without a regular transfer, the fact of such service does 
not act as a transfer, but the minister remains a member of his 
original Conference and must remain in that membership until 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


325 


the Bishops concerned give their consent and formally make the 
transfer. It also follows that a District Superintendent has 
no right to employ on his District an effective preacher who 
belongs to another Annual Conference. (The matter is treated 
to some extent in the Episcopal Ruling of May, 1907, No. 27, 
and in the Ruling of November, 1892, and May, 1907, No. 28.) 

Paragraph 186, Section 3, gives a District Superintendent 
power to change the appointments of the preachers in his Dis¬ 
trict if necessary during the interval between the sessions of 
the Conference, in case the Bishop is not personally present 
within the bounds of the Annual Conference. But he does not 
have the power to send out or bring into the District an effec¬ 
tive preacher who belongs to another District. Appointments 
involving the change of a pastor from one to another District 
must be by the Bishop in charge. 

Local Preachers as Conference Claimants 

175. November, 1914. Under the action of the General Con¬ 
ference of 1912, as printed in the Journal , though not in the 
Discipline , it appears that an Annual Conference may by a two- 
thirds vote of those present and voting, accept as a special claim¬ 
ant a local preacher who has been regularly appointed as a 
supply for at least fifteen consecutive years. It can grant him 
aid only from such funds as may have been collected by and 
for said Conference and not from the Chartered Fund or Book 
Concern dividend. These provisions apply also to the widow of 
such local preacher on the same conditions. It is our judgment 
that such action does not constitute such a local preacher a 
permanent claimant, but this action must be taken at each ses¬ 
sion of the Annual Conference. 

Proposed Amendment Concerning Bishops for Paces and 
Languages 

176. November, 1914. Inasmuch as the Secretary of the 
General Conference has not certified to the Board of Bishops 
formal authorization for the submission of the proposed amend¬ 
ment, we are not at liberty at this time to hand down this 
amendment to the Annual and Lay Electoral Conferences. 

[Disapproved. It is the duty of the Bishops to submit to the 
Conferences (Annual and Lay Electoral) an amendment au¬ 
thorized to be sent down by the General Conference. The 
Bishops take judicial notice of what appears in the Journal, 
and there is no necessity for their waiting two years and a half 
for an official notification from the Secretary of the action of 
the Conference of which they have knowledge through the 
J ournal .] 

Resignations From Church Boards 

177. May, 1915. Since on the authority of the General 


Rulings 

submitted 

1916 


326 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1916 


Conference the Board of Bishops appoints certain representa¬ 
tives to membership on certain Church Boards and various 
Commissions, all resignations of such appointments must be 
made to the Board of Bishops. 

Proposed Amendment for the Election of Bishops for Races 
and Languages 

178. May, 1915. In regard to the proposed amendment to 
the Constitution, providing for Bishops for Races and Lan¬ 
guages, we find that it was to be submitted to the Annual Con¬ 
ferences in case the proposition received the requisite constitu¬ 
tional vote in the General Conference of 1912. Inasmuch as 
the Journal of that General Conference states that the proposed 
amendment did not receive the said Constitutional vote, it is 
not the function of the Bishops to submit it to the Annual 
Conference. 

But an Annual Conference has the right to propose an 
amendment to the Constitution of the Church, and to send it 
to the other Annual Conferences for their consideration and ac¬ 
tion. This is the province of the Annual Conference and not of 
the Board of Bishops, but the Bishops presiding in the several 
Annual Conferences will take pains to present a proposition 
thus sent around for the consideration of the said Conferences 
after it has been duly forwarded and received by the Secretaries 
of these bodies. 

[The first part of this ruling is disapproved. The Gen¬ 
eral Conference Journal, 1912, page 517, gives the number of 
votes in favor of the submission of the amendment: Ayes, 430; 
noes, 112; that constitutes a two-thirds vote of the quorum as 
shown in our report number reported to the General Conference 
at its present session. The Secretary’s statement that the two- 
thirds vote of the General Conference was 548 is based on the 
assumption that it was necessary the proposition should receive 
a two-thirds vote of the entire Conference rather than of the 
quorum. The proposition, therefore, should have been sent down 
to the Annual Conferences soon thereafter. 

The second part of the ruling is approved.] 

Giving, Returning, and Retaining Credentials of Ordination 

179. The giving of certificates to those who have been or¬ 
dained has always been part of the common law of the Church, 
and the statute law in the book of Discipline requiring the sur¬ 
render of credentials shows that they must have been granted 
to, and in possession of, those who have been ordained. It is 
therefore plain that one ordained is entitled to a certificate of 
his ordination. When a minister leaves the ministry of our 
Church he is legally and in honor bound to give up his ereden- 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 327 

tials of ordination received from the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, and the authorities should insist upon his so doing, but 
it is possible to permit one who withdraws to join the ministry 
of another Church to receive his parchments after the form in 
the Discipline, Paragraph 109, Section 1, has been written 
across the face of the printed or written certificate of ordination 
in such a way as to prevent the party using it as a valid creden¬ 
tial as a minister of our Church. 

Membership on Epworth League Board of Control 

180. The removal of a representative of a General Confer¬ 
ence District from within the bounds of the District creates a 
vacancy in the representation of the said District. While the 
Discipline provides that the Board of Control shall fill vacancies 
in the general office of the Epworth League, nothing is said 
as to the filling of vacancies in District representation. Under 
these circumstances the Board of Bishops is the proper body to 
fill such vacancies. 

Additional Rulings of the Bishops 

The following should be inserted under the head of Trustees 
of Property: 

(A) Trustees, or other church officers, having charge of our 
Church property shall not prevent or interfere with the legal 
and proper uses of such property as intended by the laws and 
usages of the denomination, and they shall not use the property 
for purposes not in harmony with the law and the intention for 
which the property was created. They shall not prevent or 
interfere with the pastor or other duly authorized ministers of 
the denomination in the use of said property for religious serv¬ 
ices or other proper meetings recognized by the law and usage 
of the denomination. Further, no pastor or other officer shall 
abolish or prevent a service in the church property which has 
been ordered by or according to Church law or authority. 

(B) The word “members” when used in relation to corpora¬ 
tion and similar meetings should be understood as including 
only members of twenty-one years of age, unless the law of the 
State or country fixes some other required age. 

[Disapproved. We think the ruling is not as specifically 
stated as it should be. We answer, in all such cases the law of 
the State granting the charter governs.] 

(C) In Paragraph 337 in the first line the word “shall” 
should be changed to “may,” as in the Discipline of 1908, so 
that the line shall read, “In all other cases the Trustees may be 
elected,” etc. 

(D) The Section on Divorce which stands under the head of 
Special Advices, Paragraph 67 as Section IV, Divorce, has by 
the General Conference been declared to be law, and should. 


Rulings 

submitted 

1916 


Rulings 

submitted 

1916 


Conference 

action 


Twenty-six 

Rulings 


Question 

referred 

Finding of 
Committee 


328 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

therefore, be removed from its present place among the “Special 
Advices” and placed in a proper position in the list of statutory 
laws. 

(E) We call attention to an error in the book of Discipline , 
Paragraph 186, Section 3, under the heading, “Duty of District 
Superintendents,” and in connection vrith the phrase, “in the 
absence of a Bishop” (Sections 2 and 3). 

No change was made in the law in this place by the General 
Conference of 1912. An interpretation of the phrase was given 
which should and does stand in the list of “Decisions,” but no 
change was made or proposed in the law itself. 

In view of this the Board of Bishops made the following 
ruling in May, 1913: “As no amendment was made to the law 
previously in force by the General Conference of 1912, and no 
amendment to the law was even proposed, the law should stand 
as it appeared in the book of Discipline of 1908, notwithstanding 
the error of the Discipline of 1912.” 

As there was no change in the law, the section should be 
changed by striking out the words, “in case the Bishop is not 
personally present within the bounds of the Annual Confer¬ 
ence,” and restoring the phraseology of the section as it was in 
1908 prior to the alteration. 

Report of Committee on Judiciary presented and adopted, 
May 29. 1 _ 


1920 

At the General Conference of 1920 the total number of 
rulings considered was twenty-six. As in the previous three 
quadrenniums, a broad range of topics was involved. The 
detailed enumeration is as follows: 

Report No. 14 

RULINGS OF BOARD OF BISHOPS 

Your Committee on Judiciary respectfully reports that the 
Rulings of the Bishops, as submitted to said Committee by the 
Secretary of the Board of Bishops in pursuance of authority 
so to do conferred on him by the General Conference, are hereto 
appended with our rulings thereon : 2 

Tie Vote in Election of Delegate 

1. May, 1917. In a case where one person is to be elected and 
two parties have the same vote, no one has a casting vote, but 
the tie must be broken by another ballot. 

Appro ved. 

1 Journal, 1916, pp. 462, 511-527. 

2 A11 of the following rulings were approved by the Committee on Judiciary, 
with the exception of 14 (a) and a special notation in the case of ruling 19. 




KULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


329 


Who Issues Certificates of Transfer? 

2. May, 1917. When a preacher is transferred from one 
Conference to another Conference, where another Bishop is in 
charge, the certificate of transfer should be issued by the Bishop 
having charge of the Conference from which the preacher was 
transferred. 

Expenses of Bishops' Supplies 

3. May, 1917. The Episcopal Fund is intended to provide 
for the support and legitimate expenses of the Bishops. These 
expenses include the requisite printing and stationery supplies 
for the work of the Board of Bishops, and so cover the book 
of Rulings and Decisions. 

Course of Study 

4. May, 1917. (1) Whereas, In Paragraph 599 of the Disci¬ 

pline it has been announced to the Church that “a final revision 
of the Courses of Study for the quadrennium, with a new edi¬ 
tion of the ‘Directions and Helps/ will be issued in the summer 
or fall of 1918”; 

(2) Whereas, Suggestions of possible improvements in the 
Courses approved by the Board of Bishops have come to us from 
responsible sources; therefore, 

(3) Resolved, That we request the Commission in its revision 
to consider carefully the desirability of a proper balance of the 
studies to be prescribed, and to prepare the Course with a view 
to the harmony of the Church and to the thorough indoctrina¬ 
tion of our undergraduates in the standards of our faith and 
practice, while at the same time they be made familiar with 
the movements of present-day thought. 

The Chaplaincy and Election to Orders 

5. May, 1917. A preacher or probationer in an Annual Con¬ 
ference may be elected out of the regular course to orders in 
view of a chaplaincy in the army or navy, if the conditions in 
Discipline, Paragraph 176, Section 4, and Paragraph 179, Sec¬ 
tion 4, have been complied with, and he has been officially ap¬ 
pointed to said chaplaincy. 

Leave of Absence and Supply Work 

6. May, 1917. A member of an Annual Conference has no 
right to take advantage of the provision for “leave of absence” 
for one year out of seven ( Discipline, Paragraph 186) to take 
work in another Annual Conference. 

Expenses of Judicial Conferences 

7. May, 1917. The expenses for Judicial Conferences in 
foreign lands, like the expenses for said Conferences in the 


Rulings 

submitted 

1920 


330 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1920 


United States, are payable from the General Conference Ex¬ 
pense Fund ( Discipline, Paragraph 384, Section 1). 

Designation to Quarterly Conference Membership 

8. May, 1917. (1) The Bishop ought to indicate the Quar¬ 

terly Conference relation of ministers not in the pastorate, 
unless the relation is fixed by the law of the Church. 

(2) The Quarterly Conference relation of a minister in 
what is termed detached service should be within the bounds of 
his own Annual Conference. 

Appointment to Military Service Other Than Chaplaincy 

9. October, 1917. Can a Bishop appoint an Effective mem¬ 
ber of a Conference to military service other than the chaplaincy ? 

Answer .—There is no direct authority for such appointment, 
but since the same is not forbidden by the Discipline , during 
the period of a war manned by selective draft, it is our opinion 
that members of our Conferences in military service may be so 
recorded without prejudice to their standing in the ministry. 

Election by Epworth League Board of Control of Associate 
Secretary 

10. October, 1917. Has the Board of Control of the Epworth 
League the right to create the position of Associate Secretary, 
whose duties and privileges shall be equal to those given by the 
General Conference to the General Secretary of the League ? 

Answer. —In the opinion of the Board of Bishops, the Board 
of Control of the Epworth League has the right to select an 
assistant to carry on such work as may be necessary in case of 
the disability of the Secretary. 

Changes in Boundary in District Epworth League 

11. October, 1917. In case of redistricting a Conference, 
inasmuch as the Discipline provides that the District Epworth 
League shall coincide in its territory with the District Super¬ 
intendent’s District, the District League should as soon as pos¬ 
sible change its organization and boundaries so as to correspond 
with the Conference District as changed. 

Organization of Mission 

12. October, 1917. Is it possible under an emergency to 
organize a Mission out of a Mission District in the interim of 
the General Conference? 

Answer. —No. 

Statistical Report for Conference Year 

13. October, 1917. Is it illegal for an Annual Conference to 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


331 


have its statistical reports for the calendar year rather than for 
the Conference year? 

Answer. —Yes. Ruling No. 425 distinctly fixes the year as the 
Conference year. 

Appointments Authorized 

14. May, 1918. (a) Members of Conferences to be regularly 

employed by any of the Boards authorized by the General Con¬ 
ferences may be appointed by the Bishops, without Conference 
consent. 

[Disapproved.] 

(b) Appointments to secretaryships of City Missions not 
under our control may be made under Section 4, Item 6, of 
Paragraph of the Discipline 208. 

(c) May, ,1918. In answer'to inquiry concerning appoint¬ 
ments to war work under the Young Men’s Christian Associa¬ 
tion, it is agreed that the right to make such appointments is 
covered by « Paragraph 208, Section 3, Items 4 and 5. 

Conference Membership of Returned Missionary 

15. May, 1918. The question is submitted as to the present 
status of a former member of the New England Conference who 
was regularly transferred to one of the Conferences of the 
Japan Methodist Church, but who has returned to this country. 

The action of the General Conference of 1908, recorded in 
the General Conference Journal of that year, pages 732, 733, we 
interpret to mean that legally on the return of said missionary 
to the United States for permanent residence his membership 
is in the Conference from which he went, namely, the New 
England Conference. 

Supernumerary Relation Requires Vote Annually 

16. May, 1919. In answer to the question, “Should a Con¬ 
ference by a formal vote annually, if it so desires, continue min¬ 
isters who are in the Supernumerary relation ?” 

We respectfully report that the relation of a Supernumerary 
preacher is fixed for one year only, and therefore should be 
voted upon annually. 

Division of Educational Collection 

17. May, 1919. In regard to the proportion of the Annual 
Conference Collection for the cause of Education, we report that: 
The Annual Conference is to forward to the Board of Education 
of the Church twenty per cent of the regular Conference Col¬ 
lection for Education, and this amount is to be administered 
by said General Board of Education “for educational purposes 


Rulings 

submitted 

1920 


332 REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 


Rulings 

submitted 

1920 


in connection with our schools of learning in the United States,” 
according to its judgment. 

Amendments Irregularly Proposed 

18. May, 1919. In regard to a communication from “a group 
of Minnesota Conference ministers,” presenting a proposed 
amendment to Article XI, Amendments,” in the Constitution of 
the Church, to strike out lines 7 and 8, the words, “Except 
Article X—1,” which relates to the Articles of Religion and 
doctrinal standards of the Methodist Episcopal Church, with a 
request that the Board of Bishops submit this proposed amend¬ 
ment to the Annual and Lay Electoral Conferences, we note that 
this does not come from or by action of an Annual Conference 
where it has had an affirmative vote: 

We therefore report that the Board of Bishops has no au¬ 
thority to submit to the Annual and Lay Electoral Conferences 
any proposed amendment to the Constitution of the Church 
which has not received a proper affirmative vote of an Annual 
Conference or did not emanate from the General Conference. 

Property of Unincorporated Church 

19. May, 1919. (a) When an unincorporated church, with¬ 

out a Board of Trustees and unable to elect Trustees, is joined 
to an adjacent church by the Bishop in jurisdiction, the prop¬ 
erty can be held by the Trustees of the church to which said 
church has been joined. 

(b) Every Board of Trustees holding church property in 
trust holds in trust said property under the law as in the book 
of Discipline. 

(c) Where an abandoned church property is sold by its 
Board of Trustees, the proceeds must be disposed of under the 
provisions of the book of Discipline, Paragraphs 360, 361, 362. 

(d) In case a church property belonging to a legally in¬ 
corporated church which had purchased the property and erected 
the church ceases to be used for church purposes, the in¬ 
corporated church can sell the said property and use the proceeds 
for church building purposes, and if not so used it must be 
turned over to the Annual Conference, according to the book of 
Discipline, Paragraph 360. 

[But the law of the State must be complied with.] 

Transmission of Constitutional Amendments 

20. May, 1919. It is the duty of the Acting Secretary of 
the General Conference to send to the Annual and Lay Electoral 
Conferences all proposed amendments to the Constitution of 
the Church regularly approved by the vote of an Annual or 
Lay Electoral Conference or by the General Conference itself. 


RULINGS OF THE BISHOPS 


333 


Records in Case of a Minister Expelled 

21. October, 1919. A request has been made for the record 
in the case of a minister who was (1) tried and expelled; (2) 
this verdict unanimously approved by a Judiciary Conference; 
and (3) the whole case approved by the General Conference 
through its Committee on Judiciary. Should such records be 
sent? 

Answer. —The records of a trial belong to the Annual Confer¬ 
ence in which the trial was held, and disposal of such records 
or the use of them is not within the jurisdiction of a Bishop. 

Charge Left Without Preacher: Status of Trustees 

22. October, 1919. When a charge has been left without an 
appointed pastor for a year or more and no regular services 
have been held, but the organization of the Board of Trustees 
has been maintained and the charge has met at least in part its 
connectional financial obligations, is the legal status of the 
Board of Trustees in any way invalidated? 

Answer. —It is not. 

Transfer of Property by Annual Conference 

23. October, 1919. Has the Annual Conference authority to 
vote the transfer of the local church property to the Presbyterian 
Church, so long as the local Board of Trustees is intact? That 
is, can the action of the Annual Conference be considered as 
anything more than advisory? 

Answer. —The Annual Conference has no such authority. 

Action of Trustees Limited 

24. October, 1919. If a majority of the Quarterly Confer¬ 
ence approve, but members of the local Church who are not 
officials formally object to the transfer of the property as a 
gift to the Presbyterian Church, have the local Trustees legal 
power to effect the transfer ? 

Answer .—No. 

Majority Vote of Trustees 

25. October, 1919. Must a transfer to be legal be effected by 
all the Trustees, or can a majority act, even if some of the 
Trustees object? 

Answer. —It is not necessary that all the Trustees should 
confirm. The transfer of property according to legal processes 
can be made by a majority vote of the Trustees. 

Appointment to Community Church 

26. October, 1919. There is no warrant in the Discipline 
for making an appointment to a “Community Church.” 

Report of Committee on Judiciary presented and adopted. 
May 25. 1 

1 Journal, 1920, pp. 413, 491-496. 


Rulings 

submitted 

1920 


Conference 

action 






INDEX 


Note. —In the present Index all references unless otherwise indicated are 
made to Part I of the volume, which contains such Reports as were adopted. 
The numeral “II” after an item has reference to Part II of the book, which 
includes Reports that were not adopted. The numeral “III” after a topic 
refers to Part III of the work, where are enumerated the Rulings of the Board 
of Bishops. 


A 

Abandoned Churches: 

Proceeds from Sale (III), 312, 317, 
332 

Abeledo, Lino: 

South America Conference, Case of, 
136, 137 

Absence, Leave of: 

Supply Work in another Confer¬ 
ence (III), 329 

Absentees from Conference: 

Right to vote, 185 

Administration : 

Rules obligatory (III), 299 

Affiliated Membership: 

No Provision for (III), 323 

Albritton, J. L.: 

Records of Trial, Central Ohio Con¬ 
ference, 85 

Amendments to Constitution: 

Lay Conference may propose, 146, 
147 

Minnesota Conference Ministers 
(III), 332 

Submission by Bishops (III), 325, 
326 332 

Transmission of (III), 332 

Two-thirds Vote in General Con¬ 
ference, 205-208 

Amusements: 

Paragraph 240 (1896), 79; Report 
not acted on (II), 260 

Paragraph 248 (1900), 85; Report 
not acted on (II), 262 

Anderson, L. N. B.: 

Appeal, Columbia River Confer¬ 
ence, 185-188 

Andrew, Bishop J. O.: 

Appeal on Slave-holding, 13 

Andrews, Bishop E. G.: 

Administration, California Confer¬ 
ence, 34-37 

Ordination of Women, 33 

Ruling on Slander, 66, 67 

Women as Local Preachers, 33, 34 

Annual Conference: 

Abandoned Churches, Sale (III), 
317, 332 

Abandoned Property on Circuits 
(III), 312 

Absence, Leave for Supply Work 
(III), 329 


Absentee, Right to vote, 185 
Annuity, if Membership not con¬ 
tinuous (III), 306, 307 
Annuity Claims, Powers, 215, 216 
Another Conference, Employment 
of Member (IH)* 293, 294 
Appellant, Death of, 46, 47 
Appointments, Special (III), 317 
Bishop, Enrollment of, 250, 251 
Bishop in Charge (III), 290 
Bishop, Membership of, 178-180 
Bishop Oldham, Membership of, 
178-180 

Bishop, Relation to former, 250, 
251 

Bishop’s Decision on Law Ques¬ 
tion, 25 

Boards and Commissions, 234-236 
Boundaries, 45, 46 
Boundaries, Authority of Mission 
(III), 297 

Boundaries, Tenure of Commission 
(III), 301 

Boundaries and adjoining Mission, 
113 

Boundary Commission to meet 
(III), 289 

Central Alabama, expelled Member 
(III), 319 

Central Ohio, Trial of J. L. Albrit¬ 
ton, 85 

Chaplaincy, Orders for (III), 329 
Character, Amenability not in¬ 
volving, 27 

Character, Passing before Transfer 
(III), 294 

Charges, Power to entertain, 192 
Church Membership, Restoration 
to, 26; when deposed, 95 
Claim during Suspension, 52, 53 
Claim, Forfeiture by Withdrawal 
(III), 309 

Claimant, Supernumerary as (III), 
299 

Claimants, Basis of Claim (III), 
312 

Columbia River, L. B. Anderson’s 
Appeal, 185-188 

Columbia River, Local Preachers’ 
Appeal (III), 319 

Commission, Boundary, to meet 
(III), 289 

Commission on Boundaries, Author¬ 
ity of (III), 300; Tenure (III), 301 
Commission on Federation (III), 
296 


335 


336 


INDEX 


Commissions, Relation to, 234-236 
Conduct of Member (III), 321, 322 
“Conference,” Meaning of (III), 

301 

Constitutional Question, Reconsid¬ 
eration of Vote (III), 314 
Constitutionality of Laws, Judges 
of, 12 

Continuous Body, 109 
Course of Study, new (III), 312 
Credentials, Custody (III), 316 
Credentials, Restoration of Local 
Preacher’s (III), 308 
Credentials, Restoration of (III), 

302 

Deaconesses, Amenability of (III), 
290 

Delegates, from merged Confer¬ 
ences, 228, 229 

Delegation, Vacancies in, 213 
Districts, Right to fix, 219 
Educational Collection, Division of 
(III), 331, 332 

Elder’s Orders, Seminary Rule 
(III), 311 

Employment of Member of another 
Conference (III), 293, 294 
Episcopal Ruling in open Session, 
120 

Evangelists, Field of (III), 305 
Examination, Orders without, 48 
Excuse from Study (III), 316 
Excuse from Work (III), 294 
Expelled Member, Restoration, 15 
Expelled Minister, Records (III), 
333 

Expelled Minister, Status during 
Appeal, 87-89 

Expelled Preacher, Relicensing 
(III), 307, 308 

Expelled Preachers, Restoration 
(III), 298, 299 

Federation, Commission on (III), 
296 

Foreign, Appropriation to, 51, 52 
Full Membership, Condition (III), 
301 

Home Missions and Church Exten¬ 
sion (III), 318 

Inquiry not Estoppel to Trial, 43, 
44 

Insurance Officers, Members in¬ 
eligible (III), 300 
Investigation in Interval, 16 
Joint Commission on Federation 
(III), 296 

Law Questions, Bishop’s Decision, 
25 

Laws, Judge of Constitutionality, 12 
Leave of Absence for Supply Work 
(III), 329 

Local Preacher’s Credentials, Res¬ 
toration (III), 308 
Local Preachers’ Appeal, Columbia 
River (III), 319 

Located Ministers, Readmission 
(III), 300 

Location, Trial necessary (III), 291 


Maladministration, Amenability 
for, 27 

Member of another Conference, 
Employment (III), 293, 294 
Membership by Fraud (III), 297 
Membership of less than Twenty- 
five, 108, 109 

Membership retained (III), 297 
Merged Conferences, Delegates, 
228, 229 

Military Service, Appointment to 
(III), 330 

Minister withdrawn, Return (III), 
318, 319 

Mission, Authority on Boundaries 
(III), 297 

Missions, Examining Boards (III), 
309, 310 

Missionaries, Male in, 248, 249 
Missionary furloughed, Support 
(III), 304 

Missionary returned, Membership 
(III), 331 

Motion violating Discipline , 25 
Number of Ministers constituting, 
83 

Official Reproof (III), 300 
Oldham, Membership of Bishop, 
178-180 

Open Session, Episcopal Ruling in, 
120 

Orders without Examination, 48 
Orders under Seminary Rule, 
Elder’s (III), 311 
“Other Evangelical Churches,” 
Definition of (III), 302, 303; 
Minister from (III), 309 
Parchments, Custody of (III), 297, 
298 

Passing of Character before Trans¬ 
fer (III), 294 

Persons representing Causes (III), 
317 

Presbyterian Church, Property to 
(III), 333 

Presiding Elders, Election of, 57; 

(II) , 257 

Presiding Elders, Investigation of, 
72, 73, 95 

Probationer attending School (III), 
289, 290 

Probationer, discontinued (III), 
303 

Probationers, Transfer (III), 324 
Property, Division of, 5, 6 
Quarterly Conference, Action on 
Supply (III), 293 
Quorum (III), 305 
Readmission, Located Ministers 

(III) , 308 # 

Reconsideration of Vote, Constitu¬ 
tional Question (III), 314 
Records of expelled Minister (III). 
333 

Reexamination, Authorization for 
(III), 293 

Relicensing expelled Preacher (III), 
299, 300 


INDEX 


337 


Restoration of Credentials (III), 

302 

Restoration of expelled Member, 
15 

Restoration of expelled Preachers 
(III), 298, 299 

Restoration of Member withdrawn 
(III), 297 

Restoration, Reconsideration of 
Vote (III), 319, 320 
Restoration to Church Member¬ 
ship, 26 

Secretary, Custody of Parchments 
(III), 297, 298 

Seminary Rule, Elder’s Orders 
(III), 311 

Special Appointments (III), 317 
Special Session, Legality of, 239, 240 
Statistical Report for Year (III), 
330, 331 

Study, Excuse from (III), 316 
Study, new Course (III), 312 
Supernumerary, annual Vote (III), 
331 

Supernumerary and Superannuated, 
Membership, 45, 46 
Supernumerary as Claimant (III), 
299, 324 

Supernumerary Relation, annual 
Vote (III), 331 

Supply Work, during Absence (III), 
329 

Suspended Member, Trial of, 123, 
124 

Suspension, Duration of (III), 290, 
300 

Suspension for refusing Work, 25, 
26 

Transfer, Bishop’s Consent (III), 
293, 294 

Transfer, Charges after (III), 295 
Transfer, Irregular (III), 324, 325 
Transfer, Passage of Character be¬ 
fore (III), 294 

Transfer, Members of other Con¬ 
ferences (III), 300, 301 
Transfer, Probationers (III), 324 
Transfer, Right to Appointment, 
42, 43 

Transfers, equitable Balance (III), 

303 

Trial, Disposition and Withdrawal 
of Preacher, 48, 49 
Trial, Inquiry not Estoppel, 43, 44 
Trial necessary to Location (III), 
291 

Trial, Power of, 48, 49 
Trial, Procedure to (III), 320 
Trial, suspended Member, 123, 124 
Triers of Appeals, Excess (III), 302, 
310, 311 

Upper Mississippi, Appeal forfeited 
(III), 323 

Vacancies in Delegation, 213 
Withdrawal by Consent (III), 297 
Withdrawal in Interim, 34 
Withdrawal under Charges, Appeal, 
26 


Withdrawn Member, Restoration 
(III), 297 

Withdrawn Minister, Return (III), 
318, 319 

Years effective counted (III), 309 

Annual Conference, Delegated: 
Considered (1848), 12 
Report on (1848), 16 
Annuity: 

Amendment proposed (1916), 215, 
216 

If Membership not continuous 
(III), 306, 307 
In Advance, 193, 194 
Nominal Appointments (III), 309 
Outside Service, 225-227 
Prorating Receipts (III), 308, 314 
Readmission, Effect of (III), 309 
Widow, Claim of, 193 
Withdrawal a Forfeiture (III), 309 
Years effective counted (III), 309 
Appeals: 

Alternative Method, new Law, 14, 
21-24 

Amendment of Paragraph (1900), 
87; (II), 263 

Benedict, S. S., West Wisconsin, 81 
Change of Law (1872), 23 
Church Member, Relation during, 
26; Right of, 58, 59; Right for¬ 
feited, 26; Right to make Com¬ 
plaint, 34-37 

Committee of Rights and Privileges 
(1820), 3, 4 

Damon, W. C., Restoration, 96, 
97 

Death of Appellant, 46, 47 
Defective (1920), 221 
Disciplinary Changes (1896), 75-79 
Disciplinary Changes (1904), 96 
Dryer, G. H., from Bishops’ Rulings, 
169-176 

Expelled Minister, Bishops no Juris¬ 
diction (III), 319; Status, 87-89 
First, 3 

General Conference of 1836, 5; of 
1840, 12, 13; of 1844, 13; of 1848, 
13; of 1852, 13; of 1856, 14; of 
1860, 21, 22; of 1864, 22; of 1868, 
22, 23; of 1872, 23 
General Summary (1792-1872), 27, 
28 

Improper, 81 

Johnson, S. C., Vermont, 85, 261 
Laney, D. H., Missouri, 82, 83 
Langston, M. N., Rock River, 197 
Libberton, W. J., Rock River, 263- 
265 

Local Preachers, Columbia River 
(III), 319 

Mansell, R. B., already heard, 144 
Methods from 1860 till 1872, 24 
Munson, T. H., Louisiana, 197 
Nelson, W. H., Central Alabama, 
197 

New Law, first Application in 1860, 
21 


338 


INDEX 


Privilege of expelled Church Mem¬ 
ber, 26 

Pullman, Joseph, New York East, 
on Hamilton Amendment, 82 
Report (1856), 19, 20 
Right of, 3 

Right of Church Member, 58, 59 
Right of Preacher withdrawn, 26 
Ruling in open Conference, 120 
Scott, John, Killerton Charge, 58, 
59 

Select Committee (1820), 3; (1824), 
4 

Sewell, Martha, Washington, D. C., 
194, 195 

Unchanged from 1820 till 1856, 14 
Until 1836, 3 

Upper Mississippi, Forfeited (III), 

323 

Withdrawal and Right, 26 

Appointments: 

Boards (III), 331 
Church Insurance (III), 308 
City Missions (III), 331 
Community Church (III), 333 
Nominal and Annuity Fund (III), 
309 

Removal after six Years, 217-219 
Special (III), 317 

Transferred Preacher, Right, 42, 43 
War Work (III), 331 

Appropriations : 

“Unforeseen Emergencies,” Mis¬ 
sionary Committee, 126, 127 

Area, Residential: 

Oklahoma City, Rearrangement 
(III), 323 

Saint Louis, Rearrangement (III), 

324 

Ashton, Henry: 

Records of Trial, Central New 
York, 85 

Associate Membership: 

No Provision for (III), 322, 323 

Average Grade: 

Course of Study, 142 

B 

Baker, C. S.: 

Case of, Wilmington Conference, 
138 

Ballot for Delegates: 

Method, 44, 45, 58 
Bangs, Nathan: 

Comment on Location for Unac¬ 
ceptability, 10 

Motion for Judiciary Committee, 5, 
10 

Baptism, Trine: 

Not to be practiced (III), 290, 291 
Bareilly Seminary: 

Appointment of Vice-Principal, 249, 


Benedict, S. S.: 

West Wisconsin; Appeal, 81 

Benevolent Boards: 

Apportionment, Conference Claim¬ 
ants (III), 304 

Conference Claimants (III), 307 
Relation to Annual Conference, 
234-236 

Bequests: 

Consolidated Board, Division, 240- 
242 

“Biblical and Theological Stud¬ 
ies”: 

Meaning of Phrase (III), 293 

Bishops: 

“Absence of,” 180 
Address (1856), Consideration, 18- 
20 

Administration obligatory (III), 299 
Amendments, Submission of (III), 
325, 326 

Annual Conference, Membership, 
178-180, 250, 251 

Book Committee, in Deliberations. 
64 

Change of Preacher to another Dis¬ 
trict (III), 325 

Conference Probationers, Transfer 
of (III), 324 
Deposition of, 94, 95 
Districts, Assignment to, 98-101 
Districts, Episcopal (II), 258 
Examinations, Jurisdiction over 
(III), 295 

Expenses of Supplies (III), 329 
Expulsion, 94, 95 
In charge of Conference (III), 290 
Italian Ministers, Ordination (III), 
323 

Life Tenure (II), 257, 258 
Memorials, Relation to (III), 295 
Mexico, Administration in (III), 
311 

Misconduct, 86; (II), 262 
Missionaries, Appointment of (III), 
298 

Missionary Appropriations not 
transferable (III), 301 
Mitchell, H. G., Investigation, 130, 
131 

Official Reproof (III), 300 
Open Conference, Ruling on Ap¬ 
peal, 120 

“Other Evangelical Churches” 
(III), 302, 303 

Pastoral Supply of Church (III), 
298 

Moving Ministers after six Years, 
217-219 

Pastoral Charges, Separation of 
(III), 294 

Presiding Elders, Coordinate Au¬ 
thority (II), 257 
Question of Law, Decision, 25 
Residences in Foreign Fields, 40 
Residences, Power to fix, 40 


INDEX 


339 


Resignation from Boards (III), 325, 
326 

Report or Resolution in General 
Conference, Constitutionality, 
163, 164 

Rules, Bishops’ Conference, 304 
Rulings in Case of G. H. Dryer, 
169-176 

Separation of Pastoral Charges 
(III), 294 

Special Appointments (III), 317 
Superannuated, presiding over 
Committee on Boundaries, 127 
Suspension, 94, 95 
Theological Schools, Teaching in, 
137 138 

Transfer, Bishop issuing (III), 329 
Transfer, Consent to (III), 293, 294 
Transfer, Irregular (II), 324, 325 
Transfers, joint Agreement (III), 
294 

Trial of, 94, 95 

Woman’s Home Missionary So¬ 
ciety (III), 292 
Bishops, Board of: 

Distribution of Rulings (III), 313 
Force of Rulings (III), 287 
Publication of Rulings (III), 310 
Rulings, 1908, 138, 139; (III), 289- 
297 

Rulings, 1912, 169; (III), 297-311 
Rulings, 1916, 212, 213; (III), 311- 
328 

Rulings, 1920, 240; (III), 328-333 
Rulings now approved (III), 288 
Rulings on Church Law (III), 313, 
314 

Submission of Amendments (III), 
332 

Bishops, Missionary: 

Authority and Jurisdiction, 40 
Field, Power of General Conference, 
147, 148 

Status of (II), 262 
Bishops of Another Church: 

Consecration of (III), 299 
Bishops for Races and Languages: 
Proposed Amendment (III), 312 
Submission of Amendment, Auth¬ 
orization for (III), 325 
Submission, Function of Bishops 
(III), 326 

Blackmore, F. P.:* 

New Trial denied, Nebraska Con¬ 
ference, 221-224 
Ruling of Bishop, 135 
Board of Foreign Missions: 

Support of furloughed Missionary 
(III), 304 

Boards, Benevolent: 

Apportionment, Conference Claim¬ 
ants (III), 304 

Conference Claimants (III), 307 


* Spelled “Blakemore” in Report 
No. 11,920 


Relation to Annual Conference, 
234-236 

Boards, Church: 

Appointments to (III), 331 
Resignation from (III), 325, 326 

Book Committee: 

Bishops in Deliberations, 64 
Tenure of Office, 176-178 
Vacancies in, 110, 111; (III), 296 

Boston School of Theology: 
Bishops sustained in Mitchell In¬ 
vestigation, 130, 131 

Boundaries: 

Annual Conference, 45, 46 
Commission, Authority of (III), 300 
Commission, Tenure of (III), 301 
Commissions must meet (III), 289 
Fixing, 47 

General Conference, Power to 
change, 113 

Joint Commission with Mission 
(III), 300 

Kansas Conference, Legal Notice 
to, 196, 197 
Legal Notice, 196 
Mission, Authority of (III), 297 
Mission, no Provision for Commis¬ 
sion (III), 300 

Mission, Conditions and Limita¬ 
tions, 113 

Missions, Question not submitted 
to, 178 

Northwest Kansas, Notice of, 190, 
197 

Ohio Conference, Notice to North- 
East Ohio, 232-234 
Superannuated Bishop may preside, 
127 

Bowman, Bishop Thomas: 

Decision, Ohio Conference, 79, 80 
Decision, Oregon Conference, 64, 65 
Decision, Virginia Conference (II), 
259 

Boyd, A. C.: 

Union with another Church, 124 

Boyd, Mrs. T. C.: 

Complaint against Bishop, 124, 125 
Brethren Church: 

Orders of, 65 
Briggs, M. C.: 

Administration of Bishop Andrews, 
California Conference, 34-37 
Bristol, Bishop F. M.: 

Additional Conference, Saint Louis 
Area (III), 324 
Burdick, W. C.: 

Non-Reception on Trial, 89 
Burge, H. T.: 

Action of Judicial Conference, 30 
Burt, Bishop William: 

Appointment, North India Confer¬ 
ence, 249, 250 



340 


INDEX 


Butterworth, C. H.: 

Trial, Case remanded, 127, 128 

C 

Cairns, J. G.: 

Case of, Holston Conference, 193 

California Conference: 

Administration of Bishop Andrews, 
34-37 

Damon, W. C., Restoration, 96, 97 
Hammond, J. D., Judicial Confer¬ 
ence, 110 
Call to Church: 

Advice of District Superintendents 
(III), 300 
Callen, M, M.: 

Election of Lay Delegate, Grand 
Rapids, Mich., 189-192 

Camden, N. J.: 

Case of C. H. Butterworth, 127, 128 
Case Already Determined: 

R. B. Mansell, Pittsburgh Confer¬ 
ence, 86 

Case Submitted: 

Suppositious, 87 
Cavett, John: 

Records of Missouri Conference, 
229, 230 

Central Alabama Conference: 
Appeal of Member expelled (III), 
319 

Case of W. H. Nelson, 197 
Central Illinois Conference: 

Vote of Bishop illegal, 97, 98 
Central New York Conference: 
Ashton, Henry, Records of Trial, 
85 

Bishops sustained, H. G. Mitchell 
Investigation, 130, 131 
Copy of Complaints against Pro¬ 
fessor Mitchell (III), 291, 292 
Mitchell, H. G., Supernumerary 
without Trial, 121-123 
Records of Trial, Henry Ashton and 
P. Y. Seever, 85 
Central Ohio Conference: 
Albritton, J. L., Records of Trial 
of, 85 

Superannuated Bishop and Boun¬ 
daries Committee, 127 

Central Pennsylvania Confer¬ 
ence: 

Case of S. C. Swallow, 110 
Moving after six Years, 217-219 
Trial, Memorial of William Powick, 
108 

Central Provinces Mission Con¬ 
ference: 

Case of Harkua Wilson, 142 
Certificate: 

In Lieu of Examinations (III), 293 
Not presented, W. C. Burdick, 89 
Of Ordination (III), 326, 327 


Certificate of Church Membership: 
Not given to Christian Science So¬ 
ciety (III), 289 
Properly authenticated, 27 
Reception on authenticated, 27 
Responsibility after Receipt, 15 . 
Union with another Denomination 
(III), 289 

Withholding, 224, 225 

Chaffee, J. F.: 

Action of Judicial Conference, 30 

Change of Hearing: 

Case of R. R. Humphrey, 138 

Chaplaincy : 

Military Service other than (III), 
330 

Orders for (III), 329 

Character: 

Amenability not involving, 27 
Passage before Transfer (III), 294 

Charges: 

After Transfer (III), 295 
Amendment of Bill (III), 322, 323 
Power of Annual Conference to en¬ 
tertain, 192 
Withdrawal under, 26 
Without Reproof (III), 314, 315 

Chartered Fund: 

Appropriation to Foreign Confer¬ 
ences, 51, 52 

Chateau gay Church: 

Case of R. R. Humphrey, 135, 136 

Chicago: 

Marie Church, Appeal (1908), 115- 
119; Memorial (1912), 150-159; 
Appeal (1920), 242-247 
Marie-Trinity Churches (1916), 
209-212 

Trinity Trustees and Pastor (III), 
317, 318 

Woman’s Foreign Missionary So¬ 
ciety, Northwestern Branch, 144, 
145 

Chili Conference: 

Local Preacher in Lay Conference, 
149, 150 

China Central Mission Confer¬ 
ence: 

Inclusion in, 166 

“Christian Doctrine, System of”: 
Credits given for Book (III), 315 

Christian Science Society: 

Letter to (III), 289 

Church: 

Appointment to Community (III), 
333 

German-speaking to English-speak¬ 
ing Conference (III), 318 
Pastoral Supply of (III), 298 
Without Preacher, Status of Trus¬ 
tees (III), 333 

Separation of Charges (III), 294 


INDEX 


341 


Church Boards: 

Resignations from (III), 325, 326 
Church Extension: 

Conference Board (III), 318 
Church Insurance Officers: 

Members of Conference ineligible 
(III), 300 

Church Law: 

Bishops’ Rulings on (III), 313, 314 
Church Membership: 

Affiliated, no Provision for (III), 
323 

Appeal, Right of, 58, 59 
Appeal, when forfeited, 26 
Associate, no Law for (III), 322, 
323 

Case remanded for new Trial, 27 
Charges without private Reproof 
(III), 314, 315 

Christian Science Society, Letter to 
(III), 289 

Divorced Persons (III), 302 
Expulsion, Relation during Appeal, 
26 

Expulsion, Right to make Com¬ 
plaint, 34-37 

Expulsion contrary to Discipline , 
15, 25 

From other Evangelical Churches 
(III), 319 

Full, Recommendation for (III), 
321 

“In good Standing,” Meaning, 227, 
228 

Meaning of, 62-64 
Meaning, as to Corporate Meet¬ 
ings, etc. (Ill), 327 
Nonreception not bar to Proceed¬ 
ings, 26, 27 

Nonresident, Limitation of Time 
(III), 332; Reporting (III), 318 
Probationary Relation imperative 
(III), 302 

Readmission void, 50, 51 
Reception contrary to Discipline, 
24, 25 

Reception on authenticated Cer¬ 
tificate, 27 

Responsibility after receiving Cer¬ 
tificate, 15 

Restoration after Expulsion, 15, 26, 
53 

Restoration, L. M. Walters, 52 
Second Trial on same Charges (III), 
290 

Trial, Memorial from Mrs. Cath¬ 
erine Evans, 107 

Trustee of another Church (II), 
259 

Union with another Denomination, 
Certificate exhausted (III), 289 
Withdrawal, 47 

Withholding Certificate, 224, 225 

Church Property: 

Abandoned, Sale of (III), 317, 332 
Abandoned on Circuits (III), 312 
Conveyance of Parsonage (III), 296 


Consolidated, Use of Property, 199- 
201 

Held under Discipline (III), 332 
Merced Church, Sale of (III), 301, 
302 

Mortgage on (III), 300, 310 
Parsonage Property, Disposal of, 37, 
38; Rights in (III), 297, 298 
Sale of (III), 296, 332 
Transfer by Majority Vote (III), 
333 

Transfer of Parsonage (III), 298 
Transfer to Presbyterian Church 
(III), 333 

Trust Clause in Deeds, 42 
Unincorporated (III), 332 
Use of (III), 327 

Churches: 

Asking Aid, Harmony with Admin¬ 
istration (III), 322 
Consolidated, Use of Property, 199- 
201 

Federation with (III), 316 
“Other Evangelical” (III), 302, 303 

Cincinnati: 

Transfer of Deaconesses, 160, 161 
Circuits: 

Abandoned Church Property on 
(III), 312 

City Missions: 

Appointments to (III), 331 

Class Leader: 

Removal by Pastor (III), 292 
Cline, C. E.: 

Verdict in Trial, Oregon Confer¬ 
ence, 87 

Cobb, A. S.: 

Action of Judicial Conference, 30 
Colorado Amendments: 
Constitutionality of, 188 

Colorado Conference: 

Status of F. F. Passmore, 87-89 
Columbia River Conference: 
Appeal of Local Preachers (III), 319 
Decision of Bishop Cooke, 185-188 
“Combined Financial System”: 
Authority of Official Board (III), 
299 

Commission on Boundaries: 
Authority of (III), 300 
Must meet (III), 289 
Provision for Joint (III), 300 
Tenure of (III), 301 
Commission on Federation: 

Joint, Jurisdiction of (III), 296 
Community Church: 

Appointment to (III), 333 
Complaints: 

Meaning of Question, 48 
Committee of Inquiry: 

Accused’s Right of Challenge (III), 
320 


342 


INDEX 


Committee on Judiciary: 

Abstract Questions, 54, 65 
Appeals defective, 221 
Evolution, 1 

First Appointment of, 29 
Indispensable, 1 

Members (1876), 29, 30; (1880), 32; 
(1884), 39; (1888), 54; (1892), 61; 
(1896), 71; (1900), 84, 85; (1904), 
92; (1908), 112, 113; (1912), 140, 
141; (1916), 183; (1920), 220 
New Method of Appointment, 39 
Small Beginning, 31 
Work broadening, 38 

“Committee on Law Questions”: 
Consideration of “Delegated An¬ 
nual Conference,” 12 
In 1848 and 1860, 11 
Report (1848), 12, 18 
“Committee on Rights and Priv¬ 
ileges”: 

Appeal considered by (1820), 3, 4 
Committee on Trials and Appeals: 
Report on Bishops’ Address (1856), 
12 

Committees, Standing or Special: 
Disciplinary Changes, 1848-1876, 
15 

“Conference”: 

Meaning of (III), 301 
Conference Claimants: 

Annuity Amendment, 215, 210 
Annuity in Advance, 193, 194 
Annuity, when Membership not 
continuous (III), 306, 307 
Apportionment by Board (III), 296 
Basis of Claim (III), 312 
Compensation for Loss, 230-232 
Decision of Bishop Hamilton, 144; 

(II) , 263-265 

Distribution of Funds, 144; (II), 
263-265 

Divorced Wife, 184 
Information to Stewards (III), 307 
Local Preacher as, 202, 203; (III), 
325 

Loss, M. H. Smith, Vermont Con¬ 
ference, 230-232 

Nominal Appointments (III), 309 
Outside Service, 225-227 
Preacher on Trial (III), 291 
Quarterly Conference Estimate 

(III) , 307 

Quarterly Payment (III), 321 
Readmission, Effect of (III), 309 
Supernumerary Preacher (III), 299, 
324 

Suspension, Claim during, 52, 53 
Widow, Claim of, 193 
Withdrawal a Forfeiture (III), 309 

Conference Claimants, Board of: 
A Benevolent Board (III), 307 
Apportionment by (III), 304 

“Conference of Appeals”: 

Deferred four Years (1848), 16 


Reference to Committee on Re- 
visals (1860), 23; (1872), 23 
Report on (1852), 18 
Connectional Boards: 

Division of Bequests, 240-242 
Consolidated Church: 

. Use of Property, 199-201 

Constitution of Church: 

Amendments irregularly proposed 
(III), 332 

Colorado Amendments, 188 
Lay Conference may propose, 146, 
147 

Two-thirds Vote on Amendments, 
205-208 

Constitutional Amendments: 

Two-thirds Vote, 205-208 
Constitutional Question: 

Right of Annual Conference to re¬ 
consider (III), 314 
Constitutionality : 

Annual Conferences the Judges, 12 
Colorado Amendments, 188 
Doctrinal Question in Ritual (1916), 
266-271; (1920), 271-282 
General Conference Measures (III), 
313, 314 

Reports or Resolutions in General 
Conference, 163, 164 
Cooke, Bishop R. J.: 

Appeal from Decision, Columbia 
River Conference, 185-188 
Cooke, G. A.: 

Appeal from Ruling of Bishop 
Moore, 125 
Cooper, R. T.: 

Case of, Erie Conference, 167-169 
Corkman, W. F.: 

Case of, Wilmington Conference, 
138 

Corkran, W. S.: 

Case of, Wilmington Conference, 
138 

Corresponding Secretary, Office 
of: 

Missionary Bishop cannot hold, 181, 

182 

Course of Study: 

Average Grade, 142 
Excuse of Preacher on Trial (III), 
316 

Harmony of Church (III), 329 
New to be followed (III), 312 
Proper Balance (III), 329 
“System of Christian Doctrine,” 
Credits for (III), 315 
Court of Appeals: 

Memorial on, 201, 202 
Reference to Committee on Re- 
visals (1860 and 1872), 23 
Report on (1852), 18; (1856), 19, 20 
Subject deferred (1848), 16 
Court, Supreme: 

Memorial relative to, 201, 202 


INDEX 


343 


Craver, S. P.: 

South America Conference, Admin¬ 
istration of Bishop, 134, 135 
Crawford, G. A.: 

Complaint against Administration 
of Bishop, 184, 185 

Credentials: 

Annual Conference the Custodian 
(III), 316 

Deprivation of, J. Evans, 58 
Giving, Returning, and Retaining 
(III), 326, 327 
Illegal Deprivation of, 58 
Local Preachers, Restoration (III), 
308 

Minister from other Evangelical 
Churches (III), 309 
Restoration of (III), 302 
Restoration, Reconsideration of 
Vote (III), 319, 320 
Cumming, F. H.: 

Central Illinois Conference, Vote 
illegal, 97, 98 

D 

Dakota Conference: 

Case of F. P. Blackmore, 221-224 
Case of J. H. Vogt, 131, 132 
Damon, W. C.: 

California Conference, Restoration 
to Roll, 96, 97 
Danford, S. A.: 

North Dakota Conference, Former 
Jeopardy, 197-199 
Day, J. R.: 

New York Conference, Bishop’s 
Ruling, 125 
Deacon’s Orders: 

Discontinued Conference Proba¬ 
tioners (III), 303 

Deaconesses: 

Amenability of (III), 290 
In Missions (III), 291 
Not Pastor (III), 300 
Transfer of, 160, 161 
Deaconess Board: 

Rules of, Memorial, 148 

Deaconess Institutions : 

Definition of, 162, 163 
Missionary Training Schools (III), 
307 

Decisions, Judicial: 

When operative (III), 303 
Deeds: 

Trust Clause in, 42 
Delaware Conference: 

Case of F. C. Wright, 110 
“Delegated Annual Conference”: 
Considered (1848), 12 
Report on (1848), 16 
Delegates, General Conference: 
Alternate Lay, Minnesota Confer¬ 
ence, 55 


Equal Representation, 69, 70 
Error in Lay Election, Grand 
Rapids, Mich., 189-192 
From merged Conferences, 228, 229 
Located Preacher as Lay, 55 
Majority Election, 166, 167 
Meaning of “Lay,” 62-64 
Method of Election, 44, 45, 55, 56 
Oklahoma Reserves not seated, 93 
Reserve Lay, Indiana Conference, 
107 

South Japan Mission Conference, 
93, 94 

Tie Vote (III), 328 
Two Lay from two Churches (III), 
306 

Vacancies in Delegations, adjourned 
Session, 213 

Deposition of Bishop: 

Disciplinary Changes, 94, 95 
Des Moines Conference: 

Restoration to Church Membership, 
Walters, L. M., 52 
Sifert, A. A., Appeal from Bishop’s 
Ruling, 236-238 
Detached Service: 

Appointment valid (III), 306 
Quarterly Conference Relation 
(III), 291 
Discipline : 

Church Property held under (III), 
332 

Error as to District Superintendents 
(III), 328 

Expulsion contrary to, 15, 25 
Motion in Violation of, 25 
Paragraph 188 (1888), 57, 256 
Paragraph 248 (1900), 85, 262 
Paragraph 186, Section 3 (1912), 
316, 317 

Reception contrary to, 24, 25 
Standing Committee on Errors 
(III), 317 

Disciplinary Changes: 

From 1816 to 1832, 4 
From 1848 to 1876, 15 
In 1896, 67-71 
In 1904, 94-96 
Origin of early, 3 
Disposition of Preacher: 

New Paragraph (1884), 48, 49 
District Conferences: 

Credentials from other Churches 
(III), 309 

District Stewards: 

Estimate and Apportionment (III), 
306 

District Superintendents: 
Accusation against (III), 322 
Advice as to Call (III), 300 
Appointment on changed District, 
143, 144 

Conduct of Conference Member, 
Inquiry into (III), 321, 322 
Duty of, Disciplinary Error (III), 
328 


344 


INDEX 


Estimate of Support (III), 306 
Evangelists, Employment of (III), 
316 

“In Absence of Bishop,” 180 (III), 
328 

Minister living apart from Wife 
(III), 306 

Minister married to divorced 
Woman (III), 303 
Missionary Appropriation not 
transferable (III), 301 
Preacher from another District 
(III), 325 

Preacher of another Conference 
(III), 325 

Preachers on District, Change of 
(III), 325 

Prorating Receipts (III), 303, 314 
Reappointment, if District changed, 
143, 144 

Reappointment of (III), 299, 300 
Supernumerary or Retired Minis¬ 
ters, Investigation of (III), 298 
Term of Office in foreign Fields 
(III), 317; in Missions and Mis¬ 
sion Conferences (III), 312 
Transfer, irregular (III), 324, 325 

Districts: 

Annual Conferences may not fix, 
219 

One in Mission, Superintendency 
(III), 304 

Pastor from one District to another 
(III), 325 

Reappointment of Superintendent, 
if Charges transferred, 143, 144 

Districted Episcopacy: 

Assignment to Sections, 98-101 
Quadrennial Assignments (II), 257 

Division of Property: 

Report of 1836, 5, 6 
Divorce : 

Disciplinary Pronouncement a Law 
(III), 320 

Divorced Persons: 

Eligibility to Membership (III), 302 
Minister married to divorced 
Woman (III), 303 
Right to marry (III), 320, 321 
Wife not Claimant, 184 
Doctrinal Question in Ritual: 
Concurring Opinion, J. C. Nate 
(II), 275-277 

Constitutionality of (1916), 205; 
(II), 266-271; (1920), 229; (II), 
271—275 

Minority Report (1920), 229; (II), 

27 8 282 

Noteworthy Report (II), 282, 283 
Drees, C. W.: 

South America Conference; Memo¬ 
rial as to Lino Abeledo, 136, 137 
Dryer, G. H.: 

Appeal from Bishops’ Rulings, 169- 
176 


Complaint against Publishing 
Agents, 141 

E 

East Japan Mission Council: 
Memorial of Missionaries, 176 

East Ohio Conference: 

Appeal of C. L. Smith, on “Average 
Grade,” 142 

Ebenezer Church, Washington: 
Appeal of Martha Sewall, 194, 195 

Ebright, A. O.: 

Memorial on Granville Lowther, 
109, 110 

Education, Etc.: 

General Committee on (III), 295 
Educational Collection: 

Division of (III), 331, 332 

Elder: 

Election under Local Preacher’s 
Rule (III), 306 

Election under Seminary Rule 
(III), 306, 311 

Ordination under Seminary Rule 
(III), 301 
Emert, J. M.: 

Appeal from Bishop’s Decision, 193 
Episcopacy: 

Administration in Mexico (III), 311 
Assignment to Sections or Districts, 
98-101 

Districted, 98-101; (II), 257 
Tenure of (II), 257, 258 
Episcopacy, Committee on: 

Bishop’s Decision, North Ohio Con¬ 
ference, 27 

Episcopal Residences: 

In Foreign Fields, 40 
Power of General Conference, 40 
Epworth League, District: 

Changes in Boundary (III), 330 
Epworth League Board of Con¬ 
trol: 

Election of Associate Secretary 
(III), 330 

Vacancies on (III), 327 

Equal Representation: 

Ministerial and Lay, 69, 70 
Erie Conference: 

Case of R. T. Cooper, 167-169 
Errors: 

Standing Committee on (III), 317 
Evans, Mrs. Catherine: 

Memorial on Trial of Member, 107 
Evans, J.: 

Deprivation of Credentials, 58 

“Evangelical Churches,” Other: 
Enumeration of, 302, 303 
Members from (III), 319 
Minister from (III), 309 
Roman Catholic, not, 46 



INDEX 


345 


Evangelists: 

Employment by District Superin¬ 
tendent (III), 316 
Field of Work (III), 305 

Evidence: 

In Case of Appeal, 15 
Report on, Laws, 12, 19 

Examinations: 

Authorization of new (III), 293 
Certificate in Lieu of (III), 293 
Credits in “System of Christian 
Doctrine” (III), 315 
Italian Mission (III), 312, 313 
Jurisdiction of Bishops (III), 295 
Missions, Authority of Boards (III), 
309, 310 

Orders without, 48 

Expulsion: 

Central Alabama Conference, Ap¬ 
peal of Member (III), 319 
Church Member, contrary to Disci¬ 
pline, 15, 25; Relation during 
Appeal, 26; Right of Appeal, 58, 
59; Right of Appeal forfeited, 26; 
Of Bishop, 94, 95 

Records belong to Conference (III), 
333 

Relicensing expelled Preacher (III), 
307, 308 

Restoration of expelled Church 
Member, 15, 26, 53 
Restoration of expelled Preacher 
(III), 298, 299 

Right of expelled Member to make 
complaint, 34-37 

Status of Minister during Appeal, 
87-89 

F 

Faulkner, G. H.: 

Reserve Lay Delegates, Indiana 
Conference, 107 

Federation: 

Joint Commission, Mission or Mis¬ 
sion Conference (III), 296 
With other Denominations (III), 
316 

Fields, D. W.: 

Charges against Administration, 
Tennessee Conference, 189 

FitzGerald, Bishop J. N.: 

Orders of Brethren Church, 65 

Flenner, J. D.: 

Trial and Appeal, Idaho Confer¬ 
ence, 66 

Flower Home and Hospital: 
Property of, 160 

Foreign Conferences: 

Appropriation from Chartered 
Fund, 51, 52 

Foreign Countries: 

Subsidies to Publications, 79; (II), 
260, 261 

Foreign Fields: 

Episcopal Residences in, 40 


Fowler, Bishop C. H.: 

Appeal from Rulings, West Wis¬ 
consin Conference, 81 

Frank Street Church, Rochester: 
Relief for, 59; (II), 258, 259 

Freedmen’s Aid, Etc.: 

General Committee on (III), 295 

Full Membership: 

Recommendation for Church (III), 
321 

Funds, Conference : 

Nominal Appointments counted 
(III), 309 

Readmission, Effect of (III), 309 
Withdrawal a Forfeiture (III), 309 

Furloughed Missionary: 

Support of (III), 304 

G 

General Conference: 

Adjourned Session, 203, 204 
Adjourned Session, Vacancies in 
Delegations, 213 

Alternate Lay Delegate, Minnesota 
Conference, 55 

As Judicial Body, 85; (II), 262 
Boundaries, Power to change, 113 
Columbia River, Local Preachers’ 
Appeal (III), 319 

Constitutionality of Measures 
passed (III), 313, 314; of Resolu¬ 
tion in, 163, 164 

Delegates from merged Conferences, 
228, 229 

Election of Ministerial Delegates, 
44, 45, 55, 56 

Equal Ministerial and Lay Repre¬ 
sentation, 69, 70; Episcopal Res¬ 
idences, Power to fix, 40 
Field of Missionary Bishop, Power 
to change, 147, 148 
Japan Mission represented, 217 
Journals, Authority of, 2; of 1792, 2 
Judicial Body, 85; (II), 262 
Judicial Decisions operative (III), 
303 

Legislation, new (1848), 14, 15j 
(1860), 24-27 

Located Preacher as Lay, 55 
Majority Election of Delegates, 
166, 167 

Meaning of “Lay Delegates,” 62-64 
Missionary Bishop, Power to 
change Field, 147, 148 
One third of either Order, 61, 62 
South Japan Mission Conference, 
Delegates, 93, 94 

Two-thirds Vote on Amendments, 
205-208 

General Conference Expense 
Fund: 

Judicial Conferences, 329, 330 

General Deaconess Board: 

Rules of, 148 


346 


INDEX 


General Superintendents: 

Assignment to Sections or Dis¬ 
tricts, 98-101 

Genesee Conference: 

Howard, H. W., Appeal of, 164-166; 

Restoration to Membership, 167 
Dryer, G. H., Appeal of, 169-176 

German Conference: 

Case of J. P. Peterson, 110 

Goddard Church, Kansas: 

Case of C. P. Shafer, 119-121 

Goodsell, Bishop D. A.: 

Complaint against, Iowa Confer¬ 
ence, 124, 125 

Gorse, Rev. Charles 

Appeal on Licensing of Women, 
33, 34 

Readmission of L. N. Ireland void, 
50, 51 

Graham, E. R.: 

Publishing Agent, Complaint of G. 
H. Dryer, 141 

Grand Rapids, Michigan: 

Error in Election of Lay Dele¬ 
gate, 189-192 

H 

Hamilton Amendment: 

Appeal of Joseph Pullman, 82 
Meaning of “Lay Delegates,” etc., 
62-64 

Far-reaching Importance, 70 
Vote, New York East Conference, 
82 

Hamilton, Bishop J. W.: 

Complaint against Administration 
dismissed, 184, 185 
Decision, Rock River Conference 
(II), 263-265 

Hammond, J. D.: 

Errors of Judicial Conference, 110 

Harding, F. A.: 

Appeal on Slave-holding, 13 

Hart, B. H.: 

Moving of Ministers, Central Penn¬ 
sylvania Conference, 217-219 

Henderson, Bishop T. S.: 

Administration, Tennessee Confer¬ 
ence, 189 

Appeal from Decision, J. M. Emert, 
193 

Ruling, Holston Conference, 216, 
217 

Herson, J. T.: 

Case of, Philadelphia Conference, 
148, 149 

Hinghua Mission Conference: 
Membership of Si Sik-ding, 101, 102 

Holston Conference: 

Case of J. G. Cairns, 193 
Case of C. C. Morris, 216, 217 
Ruling of Bishop Henderson, 216, 
217 


Home Missions and Church Ex¬ 
tension: 

Conference Board (III), 318 
House, T. M.: 

Decision of Judicial Conference 
affirmed, 86, 87 

Howard, G. P.: 

South America; Decision of Bishop 
Neely, 134, 135 
Howard, H. W.: 

Appeal of, Genesee Conference, 
164-165 

Restoration by Judicial Conference, 
167 

Howland, Seneca: 

Location without Consent, New 
York East Conference, 51 
Hoyt, F. W.: 

Alternate Lay Delegate, 55 
Humphrey, R. R.: 

Case of, Chateaugay church, 135, 
136 

I 

Idaho Conference: 

Flenner, J. D., Trial and Appeal, 66 
Illinois Conference: 

Case of J. B. Wolfe, 110 
“In Absence of Bishop”: 
Disciplinary Error (III), 328 
Interpretation of, 180 
Indiana Conference: 

Reserve Lay Delegates, 107 
Inquiry: 

Not Estoppel to Trial, 43, 44 
Inquiry, Committee of: 

Right of Challenge (III), 320 

Insurance Officers: 

Members of Conference ineligible 
(III), 300 

Introduction: 

By Henry Wade Rogers, v-xxxvii 
Investigations : 

Change of Paragraph 216, 72-75 
Disciplinary Changes, 75-79 
In Intervals of Sessions, 16 
Of Minister, 72-75 
Of Presiding Elders, 95 
Of Supernumerary and Retired 
Ministers (III), 298 

Iowa Conference: 

Complaint against Bishops, 124, 125 
Ireland, L. N.: 

Readmission to Membership void, 
50, 51 

Italian Conference: 

Polsinezzi, Domenico, made Super¬ 
numerary, 121 
Italian Mission: 

Jurisdiction of (III), 304 
Licensing Local Preachers (III), 
312, 313 


INDEX 


347 


Ordination of Ministers (III), 323 
Organization of, 214, 215 
Superintendent of (III), 304 
Transfer of Preachers from (III), 
321 

J 

Japan Mission: 

Representation in General Confer¬ 
ence, 217 

Japan Mission Council, East: 
Memorial of Missionaries, 176 

Japan Mission Conference, South: 
Delegates from, 93, 94 

Japanese Work: 

Service of Missionaries, 176 

Jennings, H. C.: 

Publishing Agent, Complaint of G. 
II. Dryer, 141 

Jerusalem: 

Oversight of Biblical Institute (III), 
317 

Johnson, S. C.: 

Appeal, Vermont Conference, 85; 

(II), 261 

Joint Commission on Boundaries: 
With Mission, no Provision (III), 
300 

Joint Commission on Federation: 
Jurisdiction in Mission or Mission 
Conference (III), 296 

Joint Occupation of Cities: 

With Church, South (III), 293 
“Journals,” General Conference: 
Authority of, 2 
Of 1792, 2 

Judicial Conference: 

Expenses of (III), 329, 330 
New Evidence refused, 123, 124 
Questions of Law and Fact (III), 
291 

Quorum, 96 
Reversals by, 41, 42 
Triers of Appeals in Excess (III), 
294, 302, 303 

Judicial Conference, Decisions: 
California Conference, J. D. Ham¬ 
mond, 110; William Rice, 

Cases of H. T. Burge, J. F. Chaffee, 
A. S. Cobb, Peter St. Clair, T. C. 
Workman, W. H. D. Young, 30 
Cases of M. N. Langston, T. H. 

Munson, W. H. Nelson, 197 
Central Provinces Mission, Harkua 
Wilson, 142 

Dakota Conference, J. H. Vogt, 131, 
132 

Erie Conference, R. T. Cooper, 167- 
169 

Genesee Conference, H. W. How¬ 
ard, 164, 165, 167 
Idaho Conference, J. D. Flenner, 66 
Illinois Conference, J. B. Wolfe, 110 


Memphis, Tenn., Judgment af¬ 
firmed, 197 

Nebraska Conference, F. P. Black- 
more, 135 

Northwest Iowa Conference, T. M. 
House, 86, 87 

North Ohio Conference, S. R. 
Squier, 68, 69 

Ohio Conference, G. W. Lott, 161 
Ohio Conference, R. H. Wallace, 67 
Omaha, A. A. Sifert, 236-238 
Philadelphia Conference, J. T. Her- 
son, 148, 149 

South Germany Conference, Emil 
Schilling, 113-115, 123, 124 
Wilmington Conference, W. F. 
Corkran and C. S. Baker, 138 

Judicial Body: 

General Conference as, 85 (II), 262 

Judicial Decisions: 

When operative (III), 303 

Judiciary Committee: 

At General Conference of 1836, 13- 
18 

None following till 1876, 10, 11 
Step forward, 10 

Judiciary, Committee on: 

Abstract Questions, 54, 55 
Appeals defective, 221 
Called “Judiciary Committee” in 
1876, 29 
Evolution, 1 

First Appointment of, 29 
Indispensable, 1 

Members (1876), 29, 30; (1880), 32; 
(1884), 39; (1888), 54; (1892), 61; 
(1896), 71; (1900), 84, 85; (1904), 
92; (1908), 112, 113; (1912), 140, 
141; (1916), 183; (1920), 220 
New Method of Appointment, 39 
Small Beginning, 31 
Work broadening, 38 


K 

Kansas Conference: 

Boundaries, Notice of Northwest 
Kansas Conference, 196, 197 
Boyd, A. C., Case of, 124 
Boyd, Mrs. T. G., Complaint 
against Bishop, 124, 125 
Knox, J. D., Name restored, 80, 81; 
Record of Trial, 85 

Knox, J. D.: 

Name restored to Conference Roll, 
80, 81 

Records of Trial, 85 


L 

Ladies’ Aid Societies: 

Moneys (III), 296, 297 
President of (III), 296 
Representative in Quarterly Con¬ 
ference (III), 295 


348 


INDEX 


Lancaster Circuit: 

Petition on Slave-holding, 6-8 

Laney, D. H.: 

Case referred back, 82, 83 

Langston, M. M.: 

Appeal of, Little Rock Conference, 
197 

Law: 

Admissibility of Testimony (1848), 
15 

Constitutionality of, Annual Con¬ 
ference Judges, 12 
Decision of Bishop in Conference, 25 
Early Interpretations of, 4 
Pronouncement on Divorce, 320 
Rulings of Bishops on (III), 313, 314 

“Law Questions, Committee on”: 
Consideration of “Delegated An¬ 
nual Conference,” 12 
In 1848 and 1860, 11 
Report (1848), 12, 13 

Lay Delegates: 

Alternate, Minnesota Conference, 
58 

Eligibility of Andraeas Ruppaner, 
Switzerland, 133, 134 
Equal Representation, 69, 70 
Error in Election, Grand Rapids, 
189-192 

Located Preacher as, 58 

Meaning of, 62-64 

Two from two Charges (III), 306 

Lay Electoral Conference: 

Distinct from Laymen’s Association 
(III), 311 

Local Preacher in Chili Conference, 
149, 150 

Right to propose Amendments, 146, 
147 

Two Delegates from two Charges 
(III), 308 

Vacancies, adjourned Session, 213 

“Laymen”: 

Meaning of, 62-64 

Laymen’s Association: 

Distinct from Lay Electoral Con¬ 
ference (III), 311 

Leaders and Stewards’ Meeting: 
Recommendation for Full Member¬ 
ship (III), 321 

Leave of Absence: 

Supply Work in another Conference 
(III), 329 

Legislation, New: 

General Conference (1848), 14, 15 
General Conference (1860), 24-27 
Summary, 1792-1872, 28 

Lent, Sister: 

License as Local Preacher, 33, 34 

Libberton, W. J.: 

Appeal from Bishop’s Decision as 
to Claimants' Funds, 144; (II), 
263-265 


Librarians, Sunday School: 

Members of Local Board (III), 315 

Life, J. M.: 

Records of Trial, Ohio Conference, 
85 

Lightbourn, A. W.: 

Standing of, Wilmington Confer¬ 
ence, 125 

Little Rock Conference: 

Appeal of M. N. Langston, 197 

Local Preachers: 

Appeal, Columbia River Conference 
(III), 319 

Change of Venue in Trial, 40, 41 
Conference Claimants, 202, 203; 
(III), 325 

Credentials, Restoration of (III), 
308 

Elder’s Orders (III), 306 
Employment without Recommen¬ 
dation, 15 

In Lay Electoral Conference, Chili, 
149, 150 

Italian Mission, Licensing (III), 
312, 313 

Services without Pastor’s Consent, 
49, 50 

Standing of Conference Probationer 
(III), 311 

Surrender of Parchments (III), 303 
Women as, 33, 34 

Located Minister: 

As Lay Delegate, 55 
Seeking Readmission (III), 308 

Location: 

For Unacceptability, Comment of 
Nathan Bangs, 10; first Instances, 
8-10 

Trial Necessary (III), 291 
Without Consent, Law for (III), 
290; Seneca Howland, 51 
Without Trial, Constitutionality of 
Paragraph 188, 57; (II), 256 

Lott, G. W.: 

Case of, Ohio Conference, 161 

Louisiana Conference : 

Case of T. H. Munson, 197 

Lowther, Granville: 

License illegal and void, 109, 110 

M 

Majority Election: 

Delegates to General Conference, 
166, 167 

Maladministration : 

Amenability of Preacher, 27 
Not involving Character, 27 

Male Missionaries: 

In Annual Conference, 248, 249 

Mallalieu, Bishop W. F.: 

Ruling as to Charges, 68 


INDEX 


349 


Mansell, R. B.: 

Appeal already heard, 144 
Case already determined, 86 
Charge of Slander ruled out, 66, 67 

Marie Church: 

Appeal (1908), 115-119; Memorial 
(1912), 150-159; Appeal (1920), 
242-247 

Case of Trinity and (1916), 209-212 
Rights of Trinity Trustees (III), 
317, 318 

Maple, W. F.: 

Law Questions not presented, 86; 

(II) , 262 

McCabe, Bishop C. C.: 

Vote in Central Illinois Conference 
illegal, 97, 98 

McDowell, Bishop W. F.: 

Complaint of Mrs. T. G. Boyd, 125 
Ruling in case of F. P. Blackmore, 
135 

Rearrangement of St. Louis Area 

(III) , 324 

McIntyre, Bishop Robert: 

Death and Rearrangement of Area 
(III), 323 

Membership, Church: 

Affiliated, no Provision for (III), 
323 

Appeal, when forfeited, 26 
Associate, no law for (III), 322, 323 
Appeal, Right of, 58, 59 
Case remanded for new Trial, 27 
Charges, without private Reproof 
(III), 314, 315 

Christian Science Society, Letter 
to (III), 289 

Divorced Persons (III), 302 
Expulsion, Relation during Appeal, 
26 

Expulsion, Right to make Com¬ 
plaint, 34-37 

Expulsion contrary to Discipline, 
15, 25 

From other Evangelical Churches 
(III), 319 

Full, Recommendation for (III), 
321 

“In good Standing,” Meaning, 227, 
228 

Meaning of, 62-64 
Meaning, as to Corporate Meet¬ 
ings, etc. (Ill), 327 
Nonreception not Bar to Proceed¬ 
ings, 26, 27 

Non-resident, Limitation of Time 
(III), 322; Reporting (III), 318 
Probationary Relation imperative 
(III). 302 

Readmission void, 50, 51 
Reception contrary to Discipline, 
24, 25 

Reception on authenticated Cer¬ 
tificate, 27 

Responsibility after receiving Cer¬ 
tificate, 15 


Restoration after Expulsion, 15, 26, 
53 

Restoration, L. M. Walters, 52 
Second Trial on same charges (III), 
290 

Trial, Memorial From Mrs. Cath¬ 
erine Evans, 107 

Trustee of another Church (II), 259 
Union with Another Denomination, 
Certificate exhausted (III), 289 
Withdrawal, 47 

Withholding Certificate, 224, 225 
Membership, Annual Conference: 
By Fraud (III), 297 
Church Insurance Officers, Appoint¬ 
ment as (III), 300 
Conduct, Inquiry into (III), 321, 
322 

Deposed, Membership when, 95 
Effective Years counted (III), 301 
Employment in another Confer¬ 
ence (III), 293, 294, 325 
Excuse from Work (III), 294 
Expulsion and Relicense (III), 307, 
308; Forfeiture of Appeal (III), 
319; Records Property of Con¬ 
ference (III), 333 

Investigation and Trial, 16-18, 72- 
75 95 96 

Official Reproof by Bishop (III), 
300 

Passing of Character before Trans¬ 
fer (III), 294 
Restoration (III), 305 
Retained until ended by Process 
(III), 297 

Suspension, Duration of (III), 290, 
300 

Supply Work in another Confer¬ 
ence, during Absence (III), 329 
Transfer, Bishop’s Consent (III), 
293, 294; irregular (III), 324, 325 
Withdrawal by Consent (III), 305; 
in Interim, 34; Forfeiture of 
Claim (III), 309; undercharges, 
Appeal forfeited, 26 
Memphis, Tenn.: 

Judicial Conference, Judgment 
affirmed, 197 

Merged Annual Conferences: 
Delegates from, 228, 229 

Memorials: 

Bishops’ Relation to (III), 295 
Merced Church, California: 

Proceeds from Sale (III), 301, 302 
Methodist Episcopal Church: 
Federation with Other Denomina¬ 
tions (III), 316 

Occupation of cities with Church, 
South (III), 293 

Mexico: 

Episcopal Administration in (III), 
311 

Mexico Conference: 

Administration of (III), 311 
Language in Minutes (III), 318 


/ 


350 INDEX 


Michigan Conference: 

Election of Lay Delegate, Grand 
Rapids, 189-192' 

Military Service: 

Appointment to (III), 330 

Miller, O. P.: 

Tenure of Office, Book Committee, 
177, 178 

Ministers: 

Credentials from other Churches 
(III), 309 

Church Insurance Officers, Ineli¬ 
gible (III), 308 

Divorced Persons, Right to marry 
(III), 320, 321 

Employment in another Conference 
(III), 293, 294 

Excuse from Work (III), 294 
Expulsion, Appeal, no Jurisdiction 
(III), 319; Records, belong to 
Conference (III), 333; Restora¬ 
tion of, 298, 299; Status pending 
Appeal, 87-89 

From other Evangelical Churches 
(III), 309 

Investigation and Tr al, 16-18, 72- 
75, 95, 96 

Living apart from Wife (III), 298 
Located, seeking Readmission (III), 
308 

Location without Consent (III), 
290 

Marriage to divorced Woman, and 
Superintendency (III), 303 
Membership in Conference re¬ 
tained (III), 297 

Membership by Fraud (III), 297 
Number constituting Conference, 
83 

Passing of Character before Trans¬ 
fer (III), 294 

Quarterly Conference membership, 
Detached Service (III), 291, 330; 
not in Pastorate (III), 330 
Readmission (III), 308 
Suspension, Duration (III), 290, 300 
Transfer, Bishop’s Consent (III), 
293, 294; Charges after (III), 295; 
Right to Appointment, 42, 43 
Withdrawal, in Interim, 34; Return 
to Conference, 318, 319 

Ministerial Representation: 
Equal, 69, 70 

Ministerial Support: 

Prorating Moneys, Law binding 
(III), 308 

Prorating Receipts, Importance 
(III), 314 

Minnesota Conference: 

Alternate Lay Delegates, 55 
Investigation of J. P. Oakley, 68 
Irregular Amendments (III), 332 
Ruling of Bishop on Orders of 
Brethren Church, 65 


Minority Reports: 

Report 9 (1904), “Are the Philip¬ 
pines a Foreign Field?” 104-107 
Report 8 (1908), “Annual Confer¬ 
ence Action without Trial void,” 
122 123 

Report 30 (1912), “Annual Confer¬ 
ence Membership of Bishop,” 
179, 180 

Report 19 (1916), “Constitutional¬ 
ity of Doctrinal Question in 
Ritual,” 205; (II), 271 
Report 6 (1920), “Constitutionality 
of Doctrinal Question in Ritual,” 
229; (II), 278-282 

Missions: 

Joint Commission with Conference, 
Boundaries, Authority on (III), 
297; (III), 300; Question not sub¬ 
mitted, 178; Territory changed 
by General Conference, 113; Re¬ 
lation to adjoining Conference, 
113 

Deaconess Board in (III), 291 
Deaconess Work, Relation of (III), 
292 

District Superintendent, Term of 
Office (III), 312 

Examining Boards (III), 309, 310 
Federation, Jurisdiction of Com¬ 
mission (III), 296 
Organization of (III), 330 
Superintendency, when one Dis¬ 
trict (III), 304 

Woman’s Home Missionary So¬ 
ciety, Relation of (III), 292 

Mission Conferences: 

China Central, Inclusion in, 166 
Commission on Federation, Juris¬ 
diction (III), 296 

District Superintendents, Term of 
Office (III), 312 

Meaning of “Conference” (III), 301 

Missionaries: 

Appointment of (III), 298 
East Japan Mission Council, Me¬ 
morial, 176 
Fitness of (III), 298 
Furloughed, Employment of (III), 
296; Support of (III), 296 
Japanese work, Service in, 176 
Male, in Annual Conference, 248, 
249 

Returned, Conference Membership 
(III), 331 
Status of (II), 262 

Missionary Appropriation: 

Not transferable (III), 301 

Missionary Collection: 

Monthly, mandatory (III), 312 

Missionary Committee: 

“Unforeseen Emergency” Appropri¬ 
ations, 126, 127 


INDEX 


351 


Missionary Bishops: 

Authority and Jurisdiction, 40 
Holding Office of Corresponding 
Secretary, 181, 182 
Oldham, W. F., Annual Conference 
Membership, 178-180 
Philippine Islands under, 103-107 
Power of General Conference to 
change Field, 147, 148 
Status of, 85; (II), 262 

Missionary Training Schools: 
Patronizing Conferences (III), 307 

Missouri Conference: 

Complaint as to Records, John 
Cavett, 229, 230 

Laney, D. H., Case referred back, 
82, 83 

Mitchell, H. G.: 

Action of Central New York Con¬ 
ference, 121-123 

Bishops sustained in Investigation, 
130, 131 

Copy of Complaints (III), 291, 292 

Montana Conference: 

Powers of Select Number, 126 
Superannuated to Supernumerary, 
Wilder Nutting, 161, 162 

Moore, Bishop D. H.: 

Appeal from Ruling, New York 
Conference, 125 

Morris, C. C.: 

Case of, Holston Conference, 216, 
217 

“Mortgaging Church Property”: 
Forbidden (III), 300, 310 
Note for Current Expense (III), 
300, 310 

Munson, T. H.: 

Case of, Louisiana Conference, 197 
N 

Nate, J. C.: 

Concurring Opinion on Doctrinal 
Question, 275-277 

Nebraska Conference: 

Bishop’s Ruling affirmed, Case of 
F. P. Blackmore, 135 
New Trial denied, F. P. Blakemore, 
221-224 

Neely, Bishop T. B.: 

Administration sustained, South 
America Conference, 134, 135 

Nelson, W. H.: 

Case of, Central Alabama Confer¬ 
ence, 197 

New York Conference: 

Appeal from Bishop’s Ruling, 125 
Appeal of R. Wheatley, Licensing 
Women, 33, 34 

New York East Conference: 
Appeal of Joseph Pullman, on Ham¬ 
ilton Amendment, 82 
Location of Seneca Howland, 51 


Newman Biblical Institute: 
Oversight of (III), 317 

Nominal Appointments: 

Counted in reckoning Annuity 
(III), 309 

Non-Resident Members: 

Definition of (III), 318 
Limitation of Time (III), 322 
Reporting (III), 318 

North Dakota Conference: 

Danford, S. A., Former Jeopardy, 
197-199 

North India Conference: 
Appointment to Bareilly Seminary, 
249, 250 

North Ohio Conference: 

Bishop’s Decision referred to Com¬ 
mittee on Episcopacy, 27 
Squier, S. R., Restoration of, 68, 69 

Northern New York Conference: 
Chateaugay church, R. R. Humph¬ 
rey, 135, 136 

Memorial, General Conference a ju¬ 
dicial Body, 85; (II), 262 

Northern German Conference: 
Legality of Special Session, 239, 240 

North-East Ohio Conference: 
Notice of Ohio Conference as to 
Boundaries, 232-234 

Northwest Iowa Conference: 

Case of T. M. House, 86, 87 
Case of W. P. Maple, 86; (II), 262 

Northwest Kansas Conference: 
Notice to Kansas Conference as to 
Boundaries, 196, 197 

Norwegian and Danish Confer- 

ENCE * 

Case of Fr. Ring, 128, 129 

Nutting, Wilder: 

Superannuated to Supernumerary, 
Montana Conference, 161, 162 

O 

Oakley, J. P.: 

Investigation, Minnesota Confer¬ 
ence, 68 

Official Board: 

“Combined Financial System,” 
(III), 299 

Recommendation for Full Member¬ 
ship (III), 321 

Trustee unconfirmed not Member 
(III), 315 

Ohio Conference: 

Appeal of F. A. Spencer, 37 
Case of G. W. Lott, 161 
Case of J. M. Life, 85 
Case of C. W. Price, 79, 80, 89-91 
Case of R. H. Wallace, 67 
Notice to North-East Ohio Confer¬ 
ence as to Boundaries, 232-234 


352 


INDEX 


Oklahoma Conference: 

Reserve Delegates not seated, 93 
Ross, D. W., Membership and Or¬ 
dination illegal, 102, 103 

Oklahoma City Residential Area: 
Death of Bishop McIntyre (III), 
323 

Rearrangement of Conference (III), 
323 

Oldham, Bishop W. F.: 

Membership in Annual Conference, 
178-180 

Oliver, Anna: 

Ordination of, 33 

Omaha Judicial Conference: 

Ruling of Bishop approved, 236- 238 

“One Third of Either Order”: 
Interpretation of, 61, 62 

Orders: 

Elder’s under Local Preacher’s Rule 
(III), 306 

Elder’s under Seminary Rule (III), 
306, 311 

Election without Examination, 48 
For Chaplaincy (III), 329 
Of Brethren Church, 65 
Probationer discontinued (III), 303 
Roman Catholic, Recognition of, 44 

Ordination: 

Certificates of (III), 326, 327 
Ministers of Italian Mission (III), 
323 

Of D. W. Ross, Oklahoma Confer¬ 
ence, 102, 103 
Of Women, 33 

Under Seminary Rule (III), 301 

Oregon Conference: 

Bishop’s Decision on Sunday school 
Committee, 64, 65 
Case of S. D. Starr, 110 
Verdict in Case of C. E. Cline, 87 

“Other Evangelical Churches”: 
Enumeration of (III), 302, 303 
Members from (III), 319 
Ministers from (III), 309 
Roman Catholic, 44 

Outside Service: 

Conference Claimant’s Funds for, 
225-227 

P 

Parchments: 

Local Preacher’s, Surrender (III), 
303 

Secretary’s Custody of (III), 297, 
298, 303 

Paragraphs: 

Location without Trial, 188 
(1888), 57, 256 

Supposititious Case, 1248 (1900), 85, 
262 

Validity, 1186, §3 (1912), 316, 317 


Parsonage Property: 

Conveyance of (III), 296 
Disposal of, 37, 38 
Quarterly Conference Membership 
of Trustees (III), 296 
Rights of several Churches (III), 
305, 306 

Sale of (III), 296 
Transfer of (III), 306 
Trustees of (III), 295, 296 

Passmore, F. F.: 

Status during Appeal, Colorado 
Conference, 87-89 

Pastor: 

As Sunday School Superintendent 
(III), 290 

Chairman ex officio Sunday School 
Board (III), 294 

Change of Appointment on District 
(III), 294, 325 

Change of Districts (III), 294, 325 
Charges against Member without 
Reproof (III), 314, 315 
Class Leader, Removal of (III), 292 
Deaconess not to serve (III), 300 
Excuse from Work (III), 294 
Divorced Persons and Membership 
(III), 302 

Evangelists, Employment of (III), 
316 

Investigation and Trial, 16-18, 72- 
75, 95, 96 

Prorating Moneys (II), 303 
Religious Services without Consent 
of, 49, 50, 96 

Right to marry divorced Persons 
(III), 320, 321 

Transfer, Bishop’s Consent (III), 
294 

Trial of, 16-18, 72-75, 95, 96 
Use of Church Property (II), 327 
Work in another Conference (III), 
294 

Pastoral Charges: 

Separation of (III), 294 
Two Lay Delegates (III), 306 

Pastoral Supply: 

Action of Quarterly Conference 
(III), 293 

Bishop’s Suggestions (III), 298 

Penninetti, A. D.: 

Case of, South America Conference, 
181 

Peterson, H. J. P.: 

Case of, German Conference, 110 

Phelps, E. P.: 

Question as to Parsonage Property, 
37, 38 

Philadelphia Conference: 

Case of J. T. Herson, 148, 149 
Ruling of Bishop on Orders, 48 

Philippine Islands: 

Foreign Field, under Missionary 
Bishop, 103-107 


INDEX 


353 


Pittsburgh Conference: 

Appeal of R. B. Mansell already 
heard, 144; Case already deter¬ 
mined, 86; Charge of Slander 
ruled out, 06, 67 

Polsinelli, Domenico: 

Made Supernumerary, Italian Con¬ 
ference, 121 

Porter, J. S.: 

Memorial on Ballot for Delegates, 
44, 45, 55, 56 

Powick, William: 

Trial Central Pennsylvania Confer¬ 
ence, Memorial, 108 

Portland, Ore.: 

Consolidated Property, 199-201 

Preacher: 

Amenability for Maladministration, 
27 

Amenability not involving Charac¬ 
ter, 27 

Annuity, if Membership not con¬ 
tinuous (III), 306, 307 
Call, Advice of District Superin¬ 
tendent (III), 300 
Change of A ppointment on District 
(III), 294, 325 

Change of Districts (III), 294, 325 
Chaplaincy Orders for (III), 329 
Charges after Transfer (III), 295 
Detached Service, Quarterly Con¬ 
ference Relation (III), 291 
Detached Service, Quarterly Con¬ 
ference Relation (III), 291 
Disposition after Trial, 48, 49 
Duty to receive Certificate, 27 
Effective years counted (III), 301 
Employment in another Conference 
(III), 293, 294, 325 
Excuse from Work (III), 294 
Expelled, Relicensing of (III), 307, 
308 

Expelled, Restoration of (III), 298, 
299 

From another Conference (III), 293, 
294, 325 

Investigation and Trial, 16-18, 72- 
75, 95, 96 

Located, as Lay Delegate, 55 
Location without Consent (III), 290 
Location without Trial (II), 256 
Maladministration, Amenability 
for, 27 

Maladministration not involving 
Character, 27 
New Trial of Member, 15 
Readmission, Effect on Claims 
(III), 309 

Religious Services without Consent 
of, 49, 50, 96 

Supernumerary and Superannuated, 
Membership, 45, 46 
Suspension, Claim during, 52, 53; 
Duration of (III), 290, 300; for 
refusing to attend Work, 25, 28 
Transfer, Bishop who issues (III), 
329; from Italian Mission (III), 


321; irregular (III), 324, 325; 
joint Agreement of Bishops (III), 
294; Right to Appointment, 42, 
43 

Trial, 48, 49 

Withdrawal, in good Standing, 48, 
49 

Preacher on Trial: 

Admission to Full Membership, un¬ 
broken Service (III), 301 
As Presiding Elder, 107, 108 
Excuse from Course of Study (III), 
316 

Not Conference Claimant (III), 291 
Orders of Discontinued (III), 303 

Presbyterian Church: 

Transfer of Church Property to 
(III), 333 

Presiding Elder: 

Coordinate Authority with Bishops 

(II) , 257 

Election of, 57; (II), 257 
Change of Pastor to another Charge 

(III) , 294 

Change of Pastor to another Charge 
(III), 294 

Change of Pastor to another Dis¬ 
trict (III), 294 

Coordinate Authority with Bishops 

(II) , 257 

Election of, 57; (II), 257 
Employment of Effective Member 
of another Conference (III), 293, 
294 

Excuse of Pastor from Work (III), 
294 

Employment of Local Preacher 
without Recommendation, 15 
Investigation and Trial, 72, 73, 95 
Judge and Counsel, 89-91 
Preacher on Trial as, 107, 108 
Suspension of Preacher, 25, 26 
Trial of Local Preacher, Change of 
Venue, 40, 41 

Price, C. W.: 

Bishop’s Decision as to Trial, 79, 80 
Case remanded, Ohio Conference, 
89-91 

Probationers, Conference: 

As Local Preacher, Lay Electoral 
Conference, 149, 150 
Attending School, Time not counted 

(III) , 289, 290 

Discontinued, Standing if Ordained 
(III), 303 

Not Claimants (III), 291 
Orders for Chaplaincy (III), 329 
Relation imperative (III), 302 
Transfer of (III), 324 

Property, Annual Conference: 
Division of, 5, 6 

Transfer to Presbyterian Church 
(III), 333 


354 


INDEX 


Property, Local Church: 
Consolidated, 199-201 
Conveyance of Parsonage (III), 296 
Held under Discipline (III), 332 
Merced Church (III), 301, 302 
Mortgage on (III), 300, 310 
Proceeds of abandoned (III), 312, 
332 

Sale of (III), 296, 332 
Transfer of Parsonage Property 
(III), 306 

Transfer to Presbyterian Church 
(III), 333 

Trust Clause in Deeds, 42 
Trustees of Parsonage (III), 295, 
296; Quarterly Conference Mem¬ 
bership (III), 296 
Unincorporated (III), 332 
Use by Pastor (III), 327 

Prorating Moneys: 

Duty of District Superintendents, 
303, 314 

Duty of Pastors, 303 

Publications: 

Subsidies to Foreign, 79; (II), 260, 
261 

Publishing Agents, Western: 
Complaint of G. H. Dryer against, 
141 

Pullman, Joseph: 

Appeal on Hamilton Amendment, 
82 

Q 

Quarterly Conference: 

Change of Venue, Local Preacher, 
40, 41 

“Combined Financial System’' 
(III), 299 

Credentials from another Church, 
Indorsement (III), 309 
Conference Claimants, Estimate 
(III), 307; to Annual Conference 
(III), 307 

Expelled Member, Appeal, 26; 

Right forfeited, 26 
Expelled Preacher, relicensing (III), 
307, 308 

Grand Rapids, election of Lay Del¬ 
egate, 189-192 

Ladies’ Aid Societies in (III), 295; 
Moneys of (III), 297, 298; Pres¬ 
ident of (III), 296 
Local Preacher, Recommendatlpn 
necessary, 15; Surrender of Parch¬ 
ments (III), 303 

Minister in detached Service (III), 
291, 330 

Minister not in Pastorate (III), 330 
Motion in Violation of Discipline , 25 
New Trial, 15, 27 
Omission of, 242 
Pastoral Supply (III), 293 
Retired Ministers in (III), 323, 324 
Sunday School Committee, 64, 65 
Sunday School Superintendent 
(III), 290, 307 


Superannuated Membership, 17, 
67, 68 

Supernumerary Membership, 67, 68 
Supervision of Sunday School (III), 
294 

Trustees as Members, 59; (II), 259; 

not confirmed (III), 315 
Trustees of Parsonage Property 
(III), 296 

Women as Trustees, 59; (II), 259 
Quorum: 

Annual Conference (III), 305 
Judicial Conference, 96 

R 

Races and Languages, Bishops for: 
Proposed Amendment (III), 312 
Submission of Amendment, Author¬ 
ization for (III), 325 
Submission, Function of Bishops 
(III), 326 

Readmission, Annual Conference: 
Church Member, when void, 50, 51 
Effect on Claims (III), 309 
Located Ministers seeking (III), 308 
On Credentials and Certificate of 
Location (III), 308 
Preacher, Effect on Claims (III), 
309 

Re admission, Church Membership: 
Minister on Credentials and Cer¬ 
tificate of Location (III), 308 
Preacher, Effect on Claims (III), 
309 

When void, 50, 51 
Reception into Church: 

Contrary to Discipline, 24, 25 
Reception on Trial: 

Certificate not presented, W. C. 
Burdick, 89 
Re-Examinations : 

Authorized by Annual Conference 
(III), 293 

Records of Trials: 

Filed and preserved, 85 
Religious Services: 

Without Consent of Pastor, 49, 50, 
96 

Reproof: 

Charges without private (III), 314 
Official, of Bishop, not required 
(III), 300 

Official, of Annual Conference 
Member (III), 300 

Reports : 

In General Conference, Bishops and 
Constitutionality, 163, 164 
Not acted upon (II), 255, 256 
Not adopted (II), 255, 256 
Representation, Equal: 

Ministerial and Lay, 69, 70 
Residences, Episcopal: 

In Foreign Fields, 40 

Power of General Conference, 40 


INDEX 


355 


Residential Areas: 

Oklahoma City, Rearrangement 
(III), 323 

Saint Louis (III), 324 

Restoration, Annual Conference: 
Credentials (III), 302, 308 
Member withdrawn (III), 305 
Preacher expelled (III), 298, 299 
Reconsideration of Vote (III), 319, 
320 

Restoration, Church Membership: 
After Expulsion, 15, 26, 53 
First Instance, Committee on Ju¬ 
diciary, 53 

Of L. M. Walters, 52 
On Appeal, 26 

Resignation from Boards: 

Made to Bishops (III), 325, 326 
Retired Ministers: 

Investigation of (III), 298 
Quarterly Conference Membership 
(III), 323, 324 

Substitution of “Retired” for “Su¬ 
perannuated,” 121 

Revisals, Committee on: 

“Courts of Appeal” referred to, 23 
Rice, William: 

Action of Judicial Conference, 30 
Ring, Fr.: 

Bishop’s Decisions, Norwegian and 
Danish Conference, 128, 129 

Right of Appeal: 

Not to be “done away,” 3 
Ritual, Doctrinal Question in: 
Concurring Opinion, J. C. Nate 
(II), 275—277 

Constitutionality of (1916), 205; 
(II), 266-271 

Constitutionality of (1920), 229; 
(II), 271-275 

Minority Report (1920), 229; (II), 
278-282 

Noteworthy Report (II), 282, 283 
Rochester, N. Y.: 

Frank Street Church, 59; (II), 258, 
259 

Rock River Conference: 

Bishop’s Decision, Claimants’ 
Funds, 144; (II), 263-265 
Request of F. D. Sheets on Cer¬ 
tificate of Membership, 224, 225 
Rockey, N. L.: 

Appeal from Appointment, North 
India Conference, 249, 250 
Rogers, Henry Wade: 

Introduction by, v-xxxvii 
Roman Catholic Church: 

Not “Evangelical Church,” 44 
Recognition of Orders, 44 

Ross, D. W.: 

Membership and Ordination, Okla¬ 
homa Conference, 102, 103 


Ross, J. W.: 

Bishop’s Administration, Califor¬ 
nia Conference, 34-37 

Round, G. C.: 

Appeal to Bishop, Virginia Confer¬ 
ence (II), 259 

Rulings of Board of Bishops: 
Distribution of Rulings (III), 313 
Publication of Rulings (III), 310 
Force of (III), 287 
Now approved (III), 288 
Other Rulings advisory (III), 287, 
288 

Rulings, 1908, 138, 139; (III), 289- 
297 

Rulings, 1912, 169; (III), 297-311 
Rulings, 1916, 212, 213; (III), 311- 
328 

Rulings, 1920, 240; (III), 328-333 
Rulings on Church Law (III), 313, 
314 

Ruppanner, Andraeas: 

Lay Delegate, Switzerland Confer¬ 
ence, 133, 134 


S 

Sabbath Elections: 

Trustees of Church Property, 240 
Saint Louis Residential Area: 

Death of Bishop Smith (III), 324 

Rearrangement of Conferences 
(III), 324 

Schilling, Emil: 

Appeal from Judicial Conference^ 
113-115 

Location affirmed, 123, 124 
School, Attending: 

Time not counted, Conference Pro¬ 
bationers (III), 289, 290 
Scott, John: 

Right of Appeal as Church Member, 
58, 59 

Secretaries, Sunday School: 

Members of local Board (III), 315 
Secretary, Annual Conference: 

Custody of Parchments after Ex¬ 
pulsion (III), 297, 298 

Information as to Claimants (III), 
307 

Surrender of Local Preacher’s Cre¬ 
dentials (III), 303 

Secretary, General Conference: 

Submission of Amendment (III), 
325, 326 

Transmission of Amendments (III), 
332 

Seever, P. Y.: 

Records of Trial, Central New York 
Conference, 85 
Select Committee: 

Appeals of 1820, 3 

Appeals of 1824, 4 

Legislation of 1848, 15 


356 


INDEX 


Select Number: 

Control of Verdict, 87 
Disciplinary Changes (1904), 95 
Guilt or Innocence of Accused, 15 
Official Reproof of Offender (III), 
300 

Powers of, 126 
Seminary Rule: 

Elder’s Orders, End of Second Year 
(III), 301 

Elder’s Orders, Requirements (III), 
306, 311 

Sewall, Martha: 

Appeal of, Ebenezer Church, Wash¬ 
ington, 194, 195 
Shafer, C. P.: 

Case of, Goddard Church, Kansas, 
119-121 
Sheets, F. D.: 

Certificate of Membership, Rock 
River Conference, 224, 225 

Shepard, Bishop W. O.: 

Additional Conferences, Oklahoma 
City Area (III), 323 
Shipman, W. H.: 

Constitutionality of Doctrinal Ques¬ 
tion (1916), 205; (II), 266-271 
Constitutionality of Question 
(1920), 229; (II), 271-282 
Memorial on Quarterly Conference, 
234 

Noteworthy Report of 1920 (II), 
282, 283 
Si Sik-Ding: 

Membership in Hinghua Mission 
Conference, 101, 102 
Sifert, A. A.: 

Appeal from Bishop’s Ruling, Des 
Moines Conference, 236-238 

Simpson, Bishop Matthew: 

Ruling on Location, New York East 
Conference, 51 
Sixth Restrictive Rule: 

Conflict with, Annuity Claims, 215, 
216 

Subsidies to Papers, 132, 133 
Slander: 

Ruling of Bishop Andrews, 66, 67 
Slave-holding : 

Appeal of Bishop J. O. Andrew 
(1844), 13 

Appeal of F. A. Harding (1844), 13 
Petition, Lancaster Circuit (1836), 
6-8 

Report on (1836), 6-8 
Resolution, Westmoreland Circuit, 
8 

Smith, Bishop C. W.: 

Death and Rearrangement of Con¬ 
ferences (III), 324 
Smith, C. L.: 

Appeal on “Average Grade,” East 
Ohio Conference, 142 


Smith, M. H.: 

Loss as Claimant, Vermont Confer¬ 
ence, 230-232 

South America Conference: 

Administration of Bishop Neely 
sustained, 134, 135 

Case of A. D. Penninetti, 181 

Withdrawal of Lino Abeledo, 136, 
137 

South Germany Conference: 

Appeal of Emil Schilling, 113-115 

Location of Emil Schilling, 123, 124 

South Japan Mission Conference: 

Provisional Delegates not admitted, 
93, 94 

Southern California Conference: 

Proceeds from Merced Church Sale 
(III), 301, 302 

Southwest Kansas Conference: 

Case of C. P. Shafer, 119-121 

Illegal License, Granville Lowther, 
109, 110 

Special Appointments: 

Of Annual Conference Members 
(III), 317 

Special Committees: 

Disciplinary Changes, 15 

Special Session: 

Legality of, Northern German Con¬ 
ference, 239, 240 

Spellmeyer, Bishop Henry: 

Decision, Norwegian and Danish 
Conference, 128, 129 

Decision, Southwest Kansas Con¬ 
ference, 119-121 

Spencer, F. A.: 

Appeal, Ohio Conference, 37 

Sprague, E.: 

Relation to Troy Conference (1848), 
17, 18 

Springer, D. W.: 

Tenure of Office, Book Committee, 
176, 177 

Squier, S. R.: 

Restoration, North Ohio Confer¬ 
ence, 68, 69 

St. Clair, Peter: 

Action of Judicial Conference, 30 

Standing Committees: 

Disciplinary Changes, 15 

Starr, S. D.: 

Case of, Oregon Conference, 110 

Statistical Report: 

For Conference Year (III), 330, 331 

Stevens, Henry: 

Appeal, Tennessee Conference, 30 

Stewards, Board of: 

“Combined Financial System” 
(III), 299 


INDEX 


357 


Stewards, Conference: 

Information as to Claimants (III), 
307 

Preachers on Trial or their Widows, 
291 

Stewards, District: 

Estimate and Apportionment to 
Churches (III), 306 

Student-Pastors : 

Harmony with Administration 
(III), 322 

Stuntz, Bishop H. C.: 

Ruling in Judicial Conference ap¬ 
proved, 236-238 

Subsidies: 

To Papers, and Sixth Restrictive 
Rule, 132, 133 

To Publications in Foreign Coun¬ 
tries, 79; (II), 260, 261 

Sunday School Board: 

Collection for Current Expenses 
(III), 304 

Dismissal of Teacher (III), 294 
Election of Teachers (III), 315 
Members (III), 315 
Pastor ex officio Chairman (III), 
294 

Quarterly Conference Committee, 
64, 65 

Quarterly Conference Supervision 
(III), 294 

Special Meeting (III), 294 
Superintendent, Term of Service 
(III), 307 

Sunday School Committee: 
Members, local church, 64, 65 

Sunday School Superintendent: 
Pastor as (III), 290 
Reelection after five Years (III), 
307 

Renomination, if not confirmed (III), 
290 

Sunday School Teachers: 

Dismissal of (III), 294 
Time for Election (III), 315 

Sunday Schools: 

Collections in (III), 304 
Missionary Collection mandatory 
(III), 304 

Quarterly Conference Supervision 
(III), 294 

Sunday Schools, Etc.: 

General Committee on (III), 295 

Superannuated Preachers : 

Annual Conference Membership, 
45, 46 

Investigation of, 73; (III), 298 
Quarterly Conference Membership, 
17, 67, 68 

Substitution of “Retired” for “Su¬ 
perannuated,” 121 ? 

Religious Services without Pastor s 
Consent, 49, 50 

Residence out of Conference, 17; 
(III), 298 


Transfer to Supernumerary, Wilder 
Nutting, 161, 162 

Superintendency of Mission: 

When but one District (III), 304 

Supernumerary Preachers: 

Annual Conference Membership, 
45, 46 

Annual Vote required (III), 331 
As Claimant (III), 299, 324 
From Effective without Trial, 121- 
123 

Investigation of, 73; (III), 298 
Quarterly Conference Membership, 
67, 68 

Relation justified, Domenico Polsi- 
nelli, Italian Conference, 121 
Relation without Consent, Wilming¬ 
ton Conference, 57, 208, 209 
Religious Services without Pastor’s 
Consent, 49, 50 

Residence out of Conference (III), 
298 

Supplies, Bishops’: 

Expenses of (III), 329 

Supply, Pastoral: 

Action of Quarterly Conference 
(III), 293 

Bishop’s Suggestions (III), 298 
Supply Work: 

During “Leave of Absence” (III), 
329 

Support, Ministerial: 

Prorating for (III), 303, 314 
Supposititious Cases: 

Inquiry submitted, 87; (II), 263 
Supreme Court: 

Memorial relative to, 201, 202 

Suspension, Conference: 

Claim of Preacher during, 52, 53 
Disciplinary Changes (1904), 94, 95 
Duration of (III), 290, 300 
Refusing Work, 25, 26 
Trial during, 123 

Swallow, S. C.: 

Case of, Central Pennsylvania Con¬ 
ference, 110 

Switzerland Conference: 

Eligibility of Andraeas Ruppanner 
as Lay Delegate, 133, 134 

Syracuse District: 

Illegal License after Expulsion, 109, 
110 

“System of Christian Doctrine”: 
Credits given for the Book (III), 315 

T 

Tennessee Conference: 

Appeal of D. W. Fields against 
Bishop’s Administration, 189 
Appeal of Henry Stevens, 30 
Testimony : 

Admissibility of (1848), 15 


358 


INDEX 


Thayer, L. R.: 

Appeal, Ordination of Women, 33 
Appeal, Withdrawal in Interval, 34 

Theological Schools: 

Teaching in, 137, 138 

“Third of Either Order, One”: 
Interpretation of, 61, 62 

Third Restrictive Rule: 

Right of Annual Conferences to 
fix Districts, 219 

Thirkield, Bishop W. P.: 

Additional Conferences, Oklahoma 
City Area (III), 323 
Additional Conferences, Saint Louis 
Area (III), 324 

r T'iE Vote * 

In Election of Delegate (III), 328 

Toledo, Ohio: 

Property of Flower Home and Hos¬ 
pital, 160 

Tompkinson, W. E.: 

Supernumerary Relation without 
Consent, Wilmington Conference, 
57 

Transfers: 

Before Charges are preferred (III), 
295 

Bishop’s Consent (III), 293, 294 
Bishop issuing (III), 329 
Charges after (III), 295 
Equitable Balance in (III), 303 
Effective Men, employed in another 
Conference (III), 308, 309 
Joint Agreement of Bishops (III), 
294 

Irregular not valid (III), 324, 325 
Italian Mission, Preacher from 
(III), 321 

Members of other Conferences (III), 
308, 309 

Notification of (III), 322 
Probationer subject to (III), 324 
Right of Preacher to Appointment, 
42, 43 

Transfer of Property: 

From German-speaking to English- 
speaking Conference (III), 318 
To Presbyterian Church (III), 333 

Traveling Preacher: 

Right to Appointment when trans¬ 
ferred, 42, 43 

Suspension for refusing Work, 25, 26 

Treasurer, Sunday School: 

Member of Local Board (III), 315 

Trial, Church Member: 

Amendment of Charges (III), 322, 
323 

Application for new, 15 
Case Remanded back, 27 
Charges without preliminary Re¬ 
proof (III), 314, 315 
Disciplinary Changes, 75-79 
Judge as Witness, 127, 128 
Proceedings set aside, 194, 195 


Second Time on same Charges (III), 
290 

Trial, Local Preacher: 

Amendment of Charges (III), 322, 
323 

Change of Venue, 40, 41 
Disciplinary Changes, 75-79 

Trial, Ministerial: 

Amendment of Charges (III), 322, 
323 

Control of Verdict, Select Number, 
87 

Disciplinary Changes, 72-75, 75- 
79, 95 

Case remanded, C. W. Price, Ohio 
Conference, 79, 80 
Inquiry not Estoppel, 43, 44 
Investigation and, 16-18, 72-75, 95, 
96 

Investigation of Supernumerary and 
Superannuated Ministers, 73; 
(III), 298 

Necessary to Location (III), 291 
Power of Annual Conference, 48, 
49, 192 

Procedure in (III), 320, 72-75 
Refusal of new Evidence, 123, 124 
Records preserved, 85 
Reports on (1848), 16, 17; (1856), 
12, 18, 19 

Suspended Member, 123 

Trial, Presiding Elders: 

Amendment of Charges (III), 322, 
323 

Disciplinary Changes, 72-75, 95 
Investigation, 95 

Triers of Appeals: 

Excess of Disciplinary Number 
(III), 302, 310, 311 

Trine Baptism: 

Not to be practiced (III), 290, 291 

Trinity Church, Chicago: 

Appeal of Marie Church (1908), 
115-119; (1912), 150-159; (1920), 
242-247 

Case of Marie and (1916), 209-212 
Rights of Trinity Trustees (III), 
317, 318 

Troy Conference: 

Appeal on Boundaries, 47 
Relation of E. Sprague, 17, 18 
Rulings of Bishop Wiley, 45, 46 

Trustees, Chartered Fund: 

Appropriation to Foreign Confer¬ 
ences, 51, 52 

Trustees, Local Church: 

Election of (III), 327 
Gift to Presbyterian Church (III), 
333 

Legal Status, when Charge without 
Preacher (III), 333 
Marie-Trinity Case (III), 317, 318 
Member of another Charge, 59; 
(II), 259 


INDEX 


359 


Members of Quarterly Conference, 
59; (II), 259 

Mortgaging Church Property (III), 
300, 310 

Not Confirmed by Quarterly Con¬ 
ference (III), 315 

Official Board, if unconformed 

(II) , 315 

Removal of, 67, 68 
Sabbath Elections for, 240 
Sale of abandoned Property (III), 
332 

Transfer of Property by majority 
Vote (III), 333 
Trust Clause in Deeds, 42 
Under Law of Discipline (III), 332 
Unincorporated Property (III), 332 
Use of Property (III), 327 
Woman as, 59; (II), 259 

Trustees, Parsonage Property: 
Conveyance of Property (III), 296 
How constituted (III), 295, 296 
Not separate Board, 295, 296 
Quarterly Conference Membership 

(III) , 296 

Transfer of Property (III), 306 

Two-Thirds Vote: 

Constitutional Amendments, in 
General Conference, 205-208 


U 

Unacceptability, Location for: 

Comment of Nathan Bangs, 10 

First Instance of Legislation, 8-10 

Upper Mississippi Conference: 

Right of Appeal forfeited (III), 323 

V 

Vacancies: 

Adjourned Session, General Con¬ 
ference, 213 

Epworth League Board of Control 
(III), 327 

Vermont Conference: 

Boundaries, Ruling by Bishop 
Wiley, 45, 46, 47 

Case of S. C. Johnson, 85; (II), 261 

Loss as Claimant, M. H. Smith, 
230-232 

Virginia Conference: 

Decisions of Bishop concurred in 
(II), 259 

Vogt, J. H.: 

Decision of Judicial Conference af¬ 
firmed, 131, 132 


W 

Walker, C. A.: 

Memorial on Supreme Court, 201, 
202 

Wallace, R. H.: 

Case of, Ohio Conference, 67 


Walters, L. M.: 

Restoration to Church Membership, 
52 

War Work: 

Appointments to (III), 331 

Warren, Bishop H. W.: 

Reinstatement and Ordination, 
Oklahoma Conference, illegal, 
102, 103 

Ruling on Orders without Examina¬ 
tion, Philadelphia Conference, 48 

Ruling on Vote of Judicial Con¬ 
ference, Case of J. D. Flenner, 66 

Washington, D. C.: 

Trial set aside, Ebenezer Church, 
194, 195 

West Wisconsin Conference: 

Appeal of S. S. Benedict from 
Bishop’s Rulings, 81 

Western Book Concern: 

Complaint of G. H. Dryer against 
Agents, 141 

Westmoreland Circuit: 

Resolution on Slave-Holding (1836), 
8 

Wheatley, R.: 

Appeal regarding licensing Women, 
33, 34 

Wheeler, Rudolph: 

Church Trial, Washington, 194, 195 

Widow of Preacher: 

Annuity Claim on Remarrying, 193 

Wife of Minister: 

Divorced not Conference Claimant, 
184 

Minister living apart from (III), 
298 

Wiley, Bishop I. W.: 

Appeal, Troy Conference, on'Ruling 
regarding Boundaries, 47 

Ruling on Boundaries, Troy Con¬ 
ference, 45, 46 

Ruling on Membership of Super¬ 
numerary and Superannuated, 46 

Wilmington Conference: 

Cases of W. F. Corkran and C. S. 
Baker, 138 

Power to entertain Charges, 192 

Standing of A. W. Lightbourn, 125 

Supernumerary without Consent, 
208, 209 

Supernumerary without Consent, 
W. E. Tompkinson, 57 

Wilson, Harkua: 

Case of, Central Provinces Mission 
Conference, 142 

Withdrawal, Church Member: 

Written Notice to Pastor, 47 

Withdrawal, Conference Member: 

By Consent (III), 305 

Forfeiture of Claim (III), 309 


360 


INDEX 


In good Standing, 48, 49; (III), 305 

In Interim, 34 

Restoration, if in good Standing 
(III), 305 

Return (III), 318, 319 

Under Charges, Right of Appeal, 26 

Wolfe, J. B.: 

Appeal from Judicial Conference, 
110 

Woman’s Foreign Missionary So¬ 
ciety: 

Collections of (III), 291 

Petition of Northwestern Branch, 
144, 145 

Woman’s Home Missionary So¬ 
ciety: 

Collections of (III), 291 

Memorial on Rules of Deaconess 
Board, 148 

Relation to Mission, its Superin¬ 
tendent, and Bishop (III), 292 


Women: 

As Local Preachers, Appeal of R. 
Wheatley, 33, 34; Ruling of 

Bishop Andrews, 33, 34 
As Trustees, Quarterly Conference 
Membership, 59; (II), 259 
Oliver, Anna, Ordination of, 33 
Ordination of, Appeal of L. R. 
Thayer, 33; Ruling of Bishop 
Andrews, 33 

Workman, T. C.: 

Case of, 30 
Wright, F. C.: 

Case of, Delaware Conference, 110 


Y 

Young, W. H. D.: 

Action of Judicial Conference, 30 



















- 





























































































































































































- 
































% 











